What are your eq tips for bass line in the mix?

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The formula (or rather the algorithm)

There's a difference. Can one design an algorithm for the mixing process? Probably. You're right, there'd be a shitload of conditionals, some with non-linear feedback perhaps, but probably designable. I have little doubt that someone somewhere in Sunnyvale or Seattle is likely already working on just such a thing as part of an automatic mixing program.

But a formula requires values to be plugged into that algorithm, and it's those values that are being asked for. But the values can only be gotten from the data; the data in this case being the tracks themselves.

G.

 

[Bristol Posse]

I figured it out, I've turned it into a linguist problem, the answer to this and every other question is:

qvtsbdindhf*/sjnfoianf;lnfubndgpmshgj dlgms snnsifn&*^GHnfs

all you have to do is translate it and you will know exactly what to do

Now, while you are trying to figure out what: qvtsbdindhf*/sjnfoianf;lnfubndgpmshgj dlgms snnsifn&*^GHnfs
actually means, twiddle the knobs on that EQ and get the bass to sound good would ya.

 

[dobro]

You're wrong. There is always a formula. I hate it. All you pros keep all the secrets to yourselves while poor bastards such as myself are left hanging in there aimlessly twiddling knobs, hoping something magical happens... GRRRRR

The formula (or rather the algorithm) is:
Make up your mind about the overall arrangement.
Decide whether the kick or bass is gonna occupy the lowest end.

If the bass is gonna be the lowest end, cut some bass out of kick.
Otherwise, cut some bass out of bass.​

Decide whether geetars or bass are gonna be important in low mids.

If...​

Decide whether bass is gonna need twang or not (play, track, record accordingly)

If...​

ARGH, ffs, I am going home

Your 'formula' represents the sum total of your experience to date. When your experience develops a bit more, it'll be less formulaic.

It's all about ears and experience in this game.

Years and years of ears and experience.

 

[noisewreck]

Your 'formula' represents the sum total of your experience to date. When your experience develops a bit more, it'll be less formulaic.

It's all about ears and experience in this game.

Years and years of ears and experience.

Don't worry dobro... you'll get used to my, uhhh, rants eventually. Anyways, Glen got it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I figured it out, I've turned it into a linguist problem, the answer to this and every other question is:

qvtsbdindhf*/sjnfoianf;lnfubndgpmshgj dlgms snnsifn&*^GHnfs

I think I've decoded it!

It really reads: "Just a spoon full of sugar helps the fernblast go zibblepop".

I couldn't agree more.

G.

 

[bunt]

qvtsbdindhf*/sjnfoianf;lnfubndgpmshgj dlgms snnsifn&*^GHnfs

.

hey that's my password How'd you get that??

 

[miroslav]

I figured it out, I've turned it into a linguist problem, the answer to this and every other question is:

qvtsbdindhf*/sjnfoianf;lnfubndgpmshgj dlgms snnsifn&*^GHnfs

all you have to do is translate it and you will know exactly what to do.

I read it as:

"High Pass everything and add more cowbell to the mix."

 

[nzausrec]

The original question was answered on page one. Basically the guy wanted to know the best places to start the eq for the bass. So many purists jump in and say 'Use your ears!'
Well, when you are looking for a starting point why not ask and from there can use one's ears and tweak according to the suggestions some good folk made on page one.
Frankly, so much fuss is made when someone asks a question about the method others use to get their results.

I'd like to ask how one 'sweeps the frequencies.' It sounds like there's an eq out there that automates the process - push a button as it plays thru the frequencies? Or is it your own by-hand-adjust-each-frequency thing as you accentuate a certain freq using a thin Q and while cutting all the others freqs you listen for any shit?

 

[noisewreck]

Well, when you are looking for a starting point why not ask and from there can use one's ears and tweak according to the suggestions some good folk made on page one.

Starting point from where?

You can't have a starting point w/o having all the elements of a given mix. There are no starting points when taken something as an abstraction, be it bass, kick, vocals, whatever. Why?

OK... let's look at some scenarios? And for simplicities sake we'll only look at the relationship between the kick and the bass (notice the fact that I am already talking about relationship between two different instruments... and compound that by the entire mix ... so yeah, we'll keep it simple and only deal with the kick/bass relationship)...

So... what is a starting point for EQing bass? I have no idea! And I am sure when you ask this same question to Bob Clearmountain, he'll say the same thing.

Questions:

What kind of bass are we talking about? Is it an electric or acoustic/upright? If it's an acoustic is it mic'd or someone put a piezo pickup on it? If it's electric, was it DI'd or amp'd and mic'd? If it was amp'd what kind of amp/speaker combo was used? How was it mic'd? What kind(s) of mic(s) were used? How were they placed?

What kind of kick are we talking about? Is it an acoustic or electric? In the case of an acoustic kick how was it mic'd? What kind of beater was used? How was the drum tuned? Where is it's fundamental frequency? If it's an electronic/synth/sample kick how is it tuned? What is it's envelope? (Is it a short thump or a boom?) Is it clean or distorted? Does it's pitch drop or is it steady?

What is the driving element as far as rhythm concerned? Is it the kick or the bass? Should the bass occupy the lower/sub frequency range or the kick? Should the kick have more presense in the midrange or the bass? Where is the real "meat" of each instrument? Where do they fight with each other and if they fight with each other in a given frequency range, is it the kick or the bass that need to be more prominent there?

So... where is your starting point?

Add in the rest of the instruments in a mix and ask the same questions to yourself... THAT'S the starting point. Once you've figured out where they need to fall, you'll have a better targetted questions that you might even be able to answer for yourself, and if not, you'll have better questions to ask than "how twiddle EQs for making my bass sound super good"?

 

[noisewreck]

Anything below 100 is waaaay too low.

Not for Drum'n'Bass it ain't. In fact in D'n'B bass (or rather subbass) lays somewhere around 50Hz - 80Hz or so, with the kick sitting above it. In which case it is the Kick that will get the severe low-cut.

In Rock, pop and many other forms it may be the reverse, especially if you have something designed for shaking booty, in which case you want the kick to sit at the bottom and bass fill in the low-mids.

Still, something like this is way too genre and song/piece/tune dependent to say "anything below 100 is waaaay too low".

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The original question was answered on page one. Basically the guy wanted to know the best places to start the eq for the bass. So many purists jump in and say 'Use your ears!'

It's not purism; it's simple pragamtism and common sense.

No matter where you start you have to "use your ears" to go from there. So what's the point of picking an arbitrary place to start that has as much of a chance of being right/wrong as anything else? You already have a starting point; it's called "no EQ at all"; the best starting point of all.

Starting with other people's settings does not necessarily get one any closer to what they really need; even the assumption that any EQ whatsoever is needed is presumptuous. The whole idea of asking for other people's settings is little more than a way of trying to avoid using one's own ears.

I'd like to ask how one 'sweeps the frequencies.' It sounds like there's an eq out there that automates the process - push a button as it plays thru the frequencies? Or is it your own by-hand-adjust-each-frequency thing as you accentuate a certain freq using a thin Q and while cutting all the others freqs you listen for any shit?

Parametric sweeping is a common technique amongst experienced mix engineers. You can read more about it here: The Big Sweep

G.

 

[miroslav]

The whole idea of asking for other people's settings is little more than a way of trying to avoid using one's own ears.

I think this hits at the core of our ongoing debates...about EQ, center-panned lead vocals, and other questions newbies often have.

I don't think it's so much about using one's own ears for "newbies"...rather it's more about trusting one's own ears.
It takes times to get to that point...whereas for a veteran, he/she already has that, thanks to years of learning, either through trial-n-error or by asking “dumb” questions.

I think the reason newbies DO ask for hands-on questions is because they DO want to see the possible ways veterans approach the same issues. Granted, they assume at times there is only one answer...but they quickly find out their error when they ask on a forum, as they will get dozens of "correct" answers.
Then they have something at least to "sift through" and use as....starting points... in order to further educate their ears so that next time they CAN just "use one's own ears".

So ultimately, you are right Glen...BUT… many newbies do need to be "pointed" at times in a specific direction in order to get a kick-start for their imagination. It's just not always clearly apparent to a newbie what that means when you tell them to "use their ears and imagination" no matter how clear it is to you and the rest of us vets...'cuz if it was...they wouldn't be here asking all these "how to" questions!

I just wish they would put up their mix instead of us having to imagine how it sounds, or at least learn how to ask better and/or more specific questions...but again...they're newbies, so it's OK to be "dumb" for awhile.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I don't think it's so much about using one's own ears for "newbies"...rather it's more about trusting one's own ears.

I'll agree with that, though it could be said that they don't trust their own ears because they don't know how to use them, and the main reason they don't know how to use them is because they either don't want to, or don't believe yet that they need to.

The basic truth is, however, whether you can trust your own ears or not, getting "starting points" from others is still pointless, because they are still just *starting points*, which - by definition - means that you still gotta use your ears to move off those starting points to what you really need. There's no way around that fact.

And with that in mind, what difference does it make where you start? You still gotta move from there based upon what you hear. It doesn't matter whether you start where person X recommends, where person Y recommends, or with some random setting pulled out of a hat, you still gotta decide for yourself where to go from that starting point. So what better way to start in that regard, what better way to get to trust and know one's own ears, than to start from where you are actually starting, which is with what you have in front of you?

In fact, no matter what one does, that is their starting point. You can't start anywhere other than with what you have to start with.

It's like asking "I need directions for how to get to Columbus, Ohio." A simple, straightforward question, right? But once you realize that the four responses you get are from people in New York City, Chicago, Memphis and Boise, and the questioner is in Salt Lake City, you realize just how arbitrary to the OP those response actually are. Those four responses have starting points that are 100% accurate for their own location, and each will start looking somewhat similar as they get closer to Ohio, but is it really a help to the OP to suggest that they drive from Salt Lake City to Boise or Chicago or NYC as "starting points" before they figure out on their own how to turn towards Columbus? Or does it make more sense to actually start where they are really starting from in Utah and figure it out from there? That's almost exactly analogous to what's going on here.

G.

 

[miroslav]

We agree Glen...they ARE just starting points...but then, there's ALWAYS a starting point, right?
For example...just like you suggested no EQ as "starting point"...there's lots of suggestions out there by pros that will suggest kicking in the typical 80Hz HP filter almost as an MO for everything!

I guess I just don't see any harm in putting the knobs any old way for a starting point as long as you understand that it's not the only/absolute way to go.
I think if anything, that's really the main piece of info that needs to be drilled into newbie's heads, otherwise, IMO, it's OK to tell them, roll a few dB off in the 150-300Hz area to reduce some "mud"...BUT...use your ears to confirm it sounds good for your given mix!!!.
So...you give them some hands-on info that they can understand and something they didn't know (i.e. 150-300Hz is the "mud" area)...but you also tell them it's NOT an absolute and only their ears can tell them if it’s the right thing to do.

You are right...it's still all about using your ears, but I'll be honest Glen, I don't know about you, but in my early days even though my hearing was much better than it is now, I STILL had many “DUH???” moments about how I was turning knobs.
No matter how good a newbie hears, it's just NOT the same kind of hearing that one develops after a few years of doing recording/mixing, and I think your perspective comes from already being there, from already HAVING those recording/mixing ears.
The notion that anyone can get to the same great place with a mix no matter how new they are to recording JUST by using their ears...is not one that's been demonstrated by too many newbies!
It takes time to learn HOW to use your ears….and to trust them.

We obviously have some differences on how people should learn and be taught...but in essence, the rest we agree on, and I honestly believe both approaches get to the same place…they just might each work better for certain people under certain situation.

 

[noisewreck]

OMG!!! Not this debate again!

 

[miroslav]

Do you mind, please!





Eh...Glen and I like to kick this can a couple of time a week...
...something to do with coffee, and when all the other threads are slow.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Glen and I like to kick this can a couple of time a week.

Oh, you have no idea how freakin' tired I am of this debate miro.

You keep asking what's wrong with your position, and I keep asking what's right about it.

We have two different standards by which we set the bar, and as long as that situation exists there will never be agreement. And as long as we live in a world where stuff is taught by whether it's not wrong instead of whether it's right, very little will ever improve.

But one fact remains. One HAS TO trust their ears to do this stuff. Even if they don't yet trust them, they HAVE to trust them. That's how it IS. Get used to it.

G.

 

[miroslav]

You keep asking what's wrong with your position, and I keep asking what's right about it.

I don't recall ever asking you what's "wrong" with my position.. as though I had any doubts about my position.
That's just your perspective that it's wrong.

At its core, we are simply talking about two different teaching methods, and I've agreed yours is *one* way...but by no means is it the *only right* way, which is your obvious contention here.

I don't say that to stir up any bad vibes here, but only to point out that in educational environments, my suggested form of instruction has been employed by teachers throughout many generations, and it's just a different teaching technique from the one you are promoting.
I say that from a somewhat knowledgeable position as both my parents were teachers, and so I've been in a teaching environment many times vis-à-vis their social/educational circles.

Neither of our approaches is "wrong", and I've never tried to suggest your approach was.
Both are valid.

That's where I would hope we can permanently end this debate.

 

[RAMI]

That's where I would hope we can permanently end this debate.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Stop it man. You're killing me.


....Oh, you were serious.

 

[noisewreck]

Do you mind, please!

In fact I do, when every thread gets hijacked and turns into this "going in never ending circles".