general bass roll off

D

daveblue222

New member
how much should generally be cut at the mastering stage? i have two projects which im working on, one being acoustic (no drums) and the other progressive/instrumental (using Addictive drums/guitar rig/sampling etc)

also wondering how the bass cut would differ between the two styles. i know that there are really no rules when it come down to mastering, but i just asking in a general sense


thanks :)
 
Unless you are hearing problems in the low end, I would not roll off or cut off by default.

When using minimum phase filters you will notice a bump or increase in gain right above your cut off frequency that is added by the phase shifts of the filter.

This is easy to verify if you can't hear it. Note your peak or rms level on your eq before and after you use the filter.

In other words if you are adding a filter when there might not be a need anyway, you may be adding more bass content than you think you are taking away and not knowing it.
 
Last edited:
daveblue222 said:
how much should generally be cut at the mastering stage? i know that there are really no rules when it come down to mastering, but i just asking in a general sense
Click to expand...

well, (and this is a gross over simplification) the roll off in bass is done under the premise that your ear is actually only picking up frequencies in certain ranges. to certain extent, rolling them off (the super low frequencies) means you're not losing anything.

as you mentioned, deciding which frequencies to lose is subjective, each person has there own way of doing it and (since ideally the mic's were placed well and the mix was done properly) you may need to do little to no eq'ing at all.

in the general sense, my technique (when i worked at a place with a 20 band equalizer) was to take an overall listen 2 or 3 times and then start by completely dropping a band of eq out: what difference did it make? did it add clarity? on the flipside, i would pot up a band and see if all it provided was cloudy or hiss-y. in that case i'd bring it down. rarely did i raise frequencies and rarely did i drop them by more then 10 db. i usually did a gradual roll off from 40hz to 20 hz.
 
I view mastering as more of a way to get tracks to sound better together than to fix any problems. Granted, some mastering places make good money enhancing (aka fixing) mixes people send in. I can't remember the last time I cut bass during mastering. Wouldn't it be better to fix the bass issue earlier in the signal chain than to rely on mastering? Unless you've got some very expensive mastering equipment and experienced ears, you could be creating new problems by adding or subtracting frequencies during mastering.
 
thanks for the promptness of you replies.


hmmm that makes sense adam, why bother to roll off the bass when you cant even hear some of the frequencies within the song. so why do many still roll off very low bass? most tutorials ive seen on master e.q almost always roll off the bass regardless of musical style etc.. i guess ive been lead into this same routine without really listening to the changes.

thanks NCdan i will take this into account before mastering stage. I'm relatively new to all this so still learning

cheers:)
 
Making cuts when there is nothing to cut doesn't do anyone any good - although (assuming we're talking digital here) it forces recalculation of the entirety of the data - But that doesn't sound like a very good idea either...
 
I use a T. C. Finalizer and have it set to discard everything below 12.5 Hz. There's no music I can dance to there, and occasionally there's some fog down there. By throwing that person out of the elevator there's a little more room for me and my buddies, if you catch my drift.

People always are telling me what I am doing is wrong, but I trust my ears.
 
Last edited:
I usually roll off a stereo mix at 30 or 40 hz, just because no one hears that anyway (even myself, the specs on my KRK's go down to 49)...the theory is that it removes any unwanted rumble that you don't know is there for any sound system that can play it back, and it gives you some additional headroom so you can squeeze a bit more volume out of the master without actually changing the sound!
 
There are some good distinctions to be considered here.

..."Making cuts when there is nothing to cut doesn't do anyone any good" being separate from..

.."why bother to roll off the bass when you can't even hear some of the frequencies within the song" and "rolling off in bass is done under the premise that your ear is actually only picking up frequencies in certain ranges".

What are the listening conditions?
A nice 'flat' 8" monitor is not going to show sub problems (there is seeing the cone move with no sound coming out' That counts. ;) ) With someone's sub system or their bass jacked up..?

Even our modest home recording chains can easily pick up 20Hz. Did some tracks get recorded 'flat with just some dress-up tone eq done at mix? Shock mounts on all the condenser mics, low filter as (maybe) needed?

Then there is the roll off done that is not aimed at the "inaudible" per say but to simply clean up', tighten', and the tailoring the low interaction of the instruments per the mix style and density you're shooting for.

But this is recording/mixing stuff. If you wait until mastering' your compromises to some extent are set and built in.
 
I'm silly enough to believe that some of the inaudibles interact with the audibles in the air/speaker/at playback and are part of the experience, (a gig without that thud would be less fun for example), so I don't cut anything unless there's a problem.
There's was a lot of bass roll off in the vinyl days for reasons of physics & format & some of that was addressed both ways in the RIAA EQ process.
BUT NOR DO I MASTER!
 
rayc said:
I'm silly enough to believe that some of the inaudibles interact with the audibles in the air/speaker/at playback and are part of the experience, (a gig without that thud would be less fun for example), so I don't cut anything unless there's a problem. ..
Click to expand...

That is another good angle, the one that does an end run around the 'I always roll ac guitar or voc whatever at such and such 'cause there's nothing useful etc 'rule. Sometimes you want to let some of that in at a reasonable shape and level.
'Weight' anyone? :)
 
I'll have to read more about the RIAA - it's always interested me. I know that bass was subtracted because it created wider movement & if realistically reproduced in a groove could throw the tone arm off the platter & that the circuit in the phone preamp restored it etc.
Interesting stuff.
 
rayc said:
I'll have to read more about the RIAA - it's always interested me. I know that bass was subtracted because it created wider movement & if realistically reproduced in a groove could throw the tone arm off the platter & that the circuit in the phone preamp restored it etc.
Interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

yeah, i remember reading a quote from mccartney about how getting the abbey road mastering engineers to allow more bass was near impossible at first because they had an experience where they left to much bass on a record and it had to be recalled from skipping.

the bass sounds that david fridmann gets on records like 'clouds taste metallic' and 'the woods' immediately jump to mind in contrast to that mode of thought.
 
There have been songs where I needed to roll off starting with 30-35hz, and a select few where it was more like 40. . . but generally, when I mix everything carefully, it ends up being a non-issue.
 
Seafroggys said:
I usually roll off a stereo mix at 30 or 40 hz, just because no one hears that anyway (even myself, the specs on my KRK's go down to 49)...the theory is that it removes any unwanted rumble that you don't know is there for any sound system that can play it back, and it gives you some additional headroom so you can squeeze a bit more volume out of the master without actually changing the sound!
Click to expand...
If you can't hear it, you shouldn't be the one mastering!

Asking about bass cuts across genres doesn't make any sense either. One mix might already have the bass cut before hitting mastering. Another might need it badly. Another in the same genre might need a bass boost.


So, here is how you know if you need a bass cut in mastering:
Play the song
Hear that there is too much bass in the song
Cut it

If your speakers don't go low enough, don't master on them.
 
Chibi Nappa said:
. . .
So, here is how you know if you need a bass cut in mastering:
Play the song
Hear that there is too much bass in the song
Cut it

If your speakers don't go low enough, don't master on them.
Click to expand...

Brilliantly simple. . . managing bass in a nutshell.
Unfortunately, I have no rep power.

EDIT Yep, after 50 - thanks. . .
 
Last edited:
Chibi Nappa said:
If you can't hear it, you shouldn't be the one mastering!

Asking about bass cuts across genres doesn't make any sense either. One mix might already have the bass cut before hitting mastering. Another might need it badly. Another in the same genre might need a bass boost.


So, here is how you know if you need a bass cut in mastering:
Play the song
Hear that there is too much bass in the song
Cut it

If your speakers don't go low enough, don't master on them.
Click to expand...

Most of the 'bass' is just stuff in the 60-150 hz region, which I boost and cut as I see fit. The stuff below 40 is virtually worthless, I just get rid of it. My lowest high-pass filter in my mix is for the bass drum, which is set to 55 generally speaking. There should be nothing but noise down there, so I'll just get rid of whatever's left. As you said, if you can't hear it, don't master it. That's why I get rid of it ;)

EDIT: This is for the type of music I do. If I did modern pop or dance music, obviously I'd have to go out and get a sub. But for the prog rock stuff I do, where the bass guitar is very melodic and higher in pitch, this sub-bass region has no useful information in it. Just noise.
 
Seafroggys said:
Most of the 'bass' is just stuff in the 60-150 hz region, which I boost and cut as I see fit. The stuff below 40 is virtually worthless, I just get rid of it. My lowest high-pass filter in my mix is for the bass drum, which is set to 55 generally speaking. There should be nothing but noise down there, so I'll just get rid of whatever's left. As you said, if you can't hear it, don't master it. That's why I get rid of it ;)
Click to expand...

I disagree with this, as there is a lot of sound in the region that you are cutting arbitrarily...in just about every style of music...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top