200-500 Hz

[JuliánFernández]

Recently I realized that most of the time I found myself cutting somewhere in the 200/500hz range in almost every source I track.

If I sweep the eq in that area I can´t find anything sound-wise worthy; only boxiness and hollowness...

Am I missing something or is just an unpleaseant range to boost or stress?

Comments/tips are welcome...

Thanks!

[Greg_L]

Same with me. I find that distorted guitars need some beefiness down there and vocals need that range for fullness, but anything drum or bass related gets a cut in that area. It's a nasty, muddy eq range for low end instruments.

[Massive Master]

(Sounds like a lack of sufficient broadband treatment)

[witzendoz]

Originally Posted by Massive Master

(Sounds like a lack of sufficient broadband treatment)

I was just going to say, "Tracking room acoustics", I used to have the same problem at my old studio, even though we did some great projects there, the new place does not have this problem. I really hear the improvement in the drum sound in my new room.

Cheers

Alan.

[Micter]

Originally Posted by witzendoz

I was just going to say, "Tracking room acoustics", I used to have the same problem at my old studio, even though we did some great projects there, the new place does not have this problem. I really hear the improvement in the drum sound in my new room.

Cheers

Alan.

Me 3.......................

[MessianicDreams]

To be fair, even in most professional studios that I've worked in, I find myself cutting the same frequencies. I used to work in a very nice studio and used to leave an EQ on the master bus, with a small scoop in the low-mids and a small boost for presence...I found I used to do that to most tracks anyways...

[Greg_L]

Originally Posted by Massive Master

(Sounds like a lack of sufficient broadband treatment)

I don't think so. I'm surrounded by traps, clouds, and reflection panels. My room is pretty freaking flat.

[Nakatira]

I did cut all the drum tracks around the same frequency as well on the latest album.
After reading gregs thread on drum recording.

I helped a lot, I did however do a small boost around 350 on bass on most of the tracks, I like em basses boomey

I did a cut on the same frequency on the organ and most guitars as well

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by JuliánFernández

Am I missing something or is just an unpleaseant range to boost or stress?

Probably a bit of both.

On one hand, there's no question that that range can get really boomy and muddy real quick if you're not careful.

On the other hand, if you find yourself having to EQ every track you make similarly in that range, that's a pretty good indication that there's probably something goofy going on.

Whether it's in your ears, monitors, your room acoustics, the setup of your monitors within your room, your room dimensions, your instruments, your microphone(s), your preamp(s), or any combination thereof is something you need to troubleshoot. But having to perform repetitive EQ on every track is not a normal or ideal situation.

G.

[iownrocknroll]

Glen,
Do you still have every find yourself applying eq/multiband compression to almost every track you record?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by iownrocknroll

Glen,
Do you still have every find yourself applying eq/multiband compression to almost every track you record?

Yes, but there's a huge difference; I fairly regularly apply parametric sweep notching to remove resonances from instruments - different every time (unless it's the same instrument ). But I don't need to repetitively remove the same band of mud from every recorded or played back track. If I did, I'd figure I either had a (probable) hardware or environmental problem or a bad change in my ears, either of which needed addressing other than corrective EQ in the mix.

G.

[JuliánFernández]

I didnt´said that I cut the exact same frequency on every track... 200 to 500Hz is a huge gap...

I said that most of the time on drums (no particulary OH), electric and acoustic guitars and voices, that range seems to be (to me) pretty tricky.

BTW, I´ve also found that on tracks recorded in treated rooms...
I don´t think is has nothing to do with gear of hearing... if anything, I´m being able to found a problem and "solve" it (so hearing is not an issue here)...
I should do a little A/B test with and without bass traps to be sure...

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by JuliánFernández

I didnt´said that I cut the exact same frequency on every track... 200 to 500Hz is a huge gap...

You're right in two ways, that 200-500 Hz *is* a huge gap, and that that general range is the source of a lot of mud. It's not unusual to throw a bit of a cut in there on the kick somewhere around 400Hz (give or take, depending upon a million things). I'd personally rate that frequency range as second only to the 3k-6k range (give or take) as a potential trouble spot. So yeah, it *can be* an especially troublesome range.

Also understand that we had now idea just what you meant by "EQ". On a 7-10 or even 15 band graphic EQ, there only one or two bands that will address that range, wide as it is. Even on a parametric, it really all depends upon the bandwidth or Q setting as to just how wide that 300hz range actually is.

But when I hear you say that you cut there in almost every source track you actually record, and that you can't "find anything sound-worthy", it gives me some concern, because sounds in that range should not be so ubiquitously "worthless" or awful, and if they are, that suggests to me a source of trouble othe rthan the instruments themselves.

Maybe you were just speaking with a bit of hyperbole that I took too literally (I seem to be having a hard time properly interpreting posts today, sorry.)

G.

[gecko zzed]

Some time ago I once posted that my most unfavourite frequencies were 160, 320 and 2500. It is those areas where I have to pay particular attention.

Interestingly, a little while ago I bought one of those cheap speaker sets for a spare PC . . . two tiny little speakers and a 'sub'. It worked surprisingly well for games . . . but I winced when I played music through them. And guess what? Their big problem was in that range 200 - 500. The lower mids were just a grey porridge. Hardly surprising as they cost hardly anything and the 'sub' was a sub in name, not in nature.

[witzendoz]

Hi,

A bit more thought on cutting frequencies and the reasons, I am not talking about adding, only cutting. The amount depends on the original sound and the desired results.

Drums:
I would generally cut 150hz and downwards from the over heads, not completely but bring it down so that with a mix of the drums in the monitors the sound cleans up without destroying the overall sound. Remember 80% to 90% of the final drum sound is in the overheads. Reason? I try to remove low rumble from the kit and I find that the kick drum firms up with a bit less low in the overheads.

Snare / Toms: Rack toms depending on size, cut 200 and downwards on the smaller toms, take off a little 100 on the floor tom. Takes out rumble and lets you turn them up without peaking levels in the overall mix.

Kick: Cut lower mids, 200 to 400, and I shelve (gentle slope) the lows from 40 hz down.

Electric guitar: 150hz and down, cleans up the woof in the bottom end and leaves room for the bass guitar.

Bass: Just because it's bass, don't be put off experimenting with a little low end cut and then turning the bass level up. If the bass was a bit noisy (hiss) I will cut 8 Khz and up to reduce noise.

Vocals: 100k and down, the rest depends on the singer and the mic and mic technique.

Reasons why cutting lower frequencies may improve mid range. All frequencies have a relative frequency (I think thats the term, old age getting to me), a problem with 120hz can sometimes be cured by cutting 60hz or 30hz, for example 15, 30, 60, 120, 240 and 480 etc etc are all related, so that a low mid problem could in fact be a low problem or an upper mid problem.

Remember, the rules in recording are NO RULES, try things out and see if it works for you.

Anyway I have talked long enough, I through this open for discussion, and other points of view.

Cheers

Alan.

[ecktronic]

Originally Posted by MessianicDreams

I find myself cutting the same frequencies. I used to work in a very nice studio and used to leave an EQ on the master bus, with a small scoop in the low-mids and a small boost for presence...I found I used to do that to most tracks anyways...

Why add EQ on the master bus when mixing?
Best to use EQ on the tracks to make the mix as good as you can then use an ME to add the finishing EQ touches (if needed).

I sometimes add a comp on the master out if it makes the mix better.

Eck (G)

[Bob's Mods]

My mixes radically improved when I started eqing this range at the track level. As a home wrecker you got to do what you got to do to get the mix right. Being a home wrecker you live with compromises. My mixes sound good and no one is the wiser that I eq'd the 200 - 500 Hz range at the track level to get my mix right. It works, go for it.

Bob

[DrewPeterson7]

Originally Posted by JuliánFernández

I didnt´said that I cut the exact same frequency on every track... 200 to 500Hz is a huge gap...

Yeah, I was thinking that while I was reading this thread too...

I'm a guitarist, so right off the bat I'll apologize for the fact I'm not as comfortable with other instruments so I'll just use a guitar as an example, but... The lowest fundamental you're likely to get out of an electric guitar is going to be somwehere between 60 (low B) and 80 (low E), so anything below that (and even probably quite a bit around that) is just garbacge that you can pretty much axe without doing anything audible to the guitar tone. Dependinig on a whole slew of other factors, I'll generally cut even higher - say, up to 120-160 or so for a lead track, depending on what it's doing and what's happenign around it, as a starting point.

That means that your lowest band of energy is going to be coming in right around the bottom of this pocket, around 200 or so. That range is going to be critical to how the low end and "beefiness" of your guitar is perceived, and how it'll interact with your bass. Cutting everything through here will pobably neuter your tone; while this may technically represent a "low-mid" range, for me this is more about how the bass frequencies in the guitar will be perceived.

At the same time, I'm not big on low-mids on "heavy" rhythm guitars, so I'll usually at least play around a bit around 400-500 or so, notching a few dB and seeing what happens if I bring the bass up a little here. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it's definitely an area that defines a lot of the "sound" of the guitars, and while I maybe carve a little out, I'd be hesitant to take too much out, for fear of turning my Rectifier into something that sounds like it was a small, solid state Crate. Again, I'm not huge on having an overly low-mid heavy rhythm tone, but an electric guitar is basically all midrange and indiscriminantly cutting is a recipe for an artificial sounding mix.

Then again, half the guys on this board could probably wipe the floor with my ass behind a board, so take this with a grain of salt.

[Bob's Mods]

Its easy for the low end of your stacked tracks to add up {sum} fast and become mud (unbalance the mix). The tweaking of this area is part tecnical neccessity and part art. The need for it to be done is real. Just how much and axactly where is really about how you want your final mix to sound.


I would further say this is really about the 0 Hz to 500 Hz range more so than just from 200 to 500.

[omtayslick]

Originally Posted by Bob's Mods

I would further say this is really about the 0 Hz to 500 Hz range more so than just from 200 to 500.

Agreed! --------

[MessianicDreams]

Originally Posted by ecktronic

Why add EQ on the master bus when mixing?
Best to use EQ on the tracks to make the mix as good as you can then use an ME to add the finishing EQ touches (if needed).

I sometimes add a comp on the master out if it makes the mix better.

Eck (G)

I found that in my mixing I often wanted to alter similar frequency ranges. It might have been a room acoustic thing, I'm not sure. Either way, it worked very well for my. Unconventional yes, but fuck the rule book, this is recording.

Also, I'm a firm believer of sending the ME the best sounding mix you can. If that means a bit of 2bus EQ, the so be it.

[ecktronic]

Originally Posted by MessianicDreams

I found that in my mixing I often wanted to alter similar frequency ranges. It might have been a room acoustic thing, I'm not sure. Either way, it worked very well for my. Unconventional yes, but fuck the rule book, this is recording.

Also, I'm a firm believer of sending the ME the best sounding mix you can. If that means a bit of 2bus EQ, the so be it.

I totally get where you are coming from, but I have always thought that the first part of any recording or mix is the most important.
Get the first parts as good as you can then the next parts should be better.

A great mix shouldn't really need much mastering which saves a few pennies.

Eck (G)

[gcapel]

I know this may sound stupid but does any freq analyzer work? Is there an outboard FA that works? I myself have never used one.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by gcapel

I know this may sound stupid but does any freq analyzer work? Is there an outboard FA that works? I myself have never used one.

I'm not sure what you're asking when you ask if they "work". They all "work" (unless they're broken, of course ).

The higher the resolution - the more bands they split the spectrum into and the greater the resolution of the volume for each band - and the faster their response speed, the more accurate and more useful they tend to be. An little ol' consumer-grade 7- or 10-band LED frequency display with 5 LEDs per band may "work", but will be limited in it's usefulness.

But like *any* measurement device from a thermometer to a seismometer to an X-ray machine, they only provide you with a measurement of a specific property; they tell you nothing about what that measurement actually *means* or what you should or should not do about it. It takes a knowledge and an ability on the part of the person reading those measurements to interpret the meaning of those measurements.

In that respect, how well a spectrum analyzer "works" is as much up to the person reading it as it is up to the device itself.

G.

[dintymoore]

Originally Posted by JuliánFernández

Recently I realized that most of the time I found myself cutting somewhere in the 200/500hz range in almost every source I track.

If I sweep the eq in that area I can´t find anything sound-wise worthy; only boxiness and hollowness...

Am I missing something or is just an unpleaseant range to boost or stress?

Comments/tips are welcome...

Thanks!

That's the typical "happy face" eq routine.

I think it's based on the fact that we hear mostly midrange and we go deaf towards either direction, so you're actually cranking the non-midrange.

Also, recording is only a partial of real life, and fundamentals never are present enough compared to real life, so we crank them in recording, and then you're cranking the 1st and 2nd harmonics too, which are generally in the 200 to 500 Hz range, so you need to dip that area as result... I could have said that better!