Low Cuts

[bdam123]

So I've been reading around and it seems to be that the consensus is to low cut everything except the kick and bass. My question is how much of a cut for everything.

What I've been doing is cutting every thing a little lower than what seems to be the fundamental. I basically sweep across the frequency range until I hear the low cut "cut" something, then move it back a notch. I do this on everything, even the high stuff like the cymbals and hi hats.

Is everything passed the fundamental just mud or am I taking away too much? My mixes definitely have way more clarity since I've employed this trick but my ears aren't good enough yet to tell if I'm taking away too much. Opinions? Thanks.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So I've been reading around and it seems to be that the consensus is to low cut everything except the kick and bass. My question is how much of a cut for everything.

Bad advice never dies.

G.

 

[bdam123]

Hey SouthSIDE, would you mind elaborating on why this is a bad practice to employ? Thanks.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

Do not apply EQ or filters of any sort unless you hear and identify a specific problem in the first place.

 

[chamelious]

Do not apply EQ or filters of any sort unless you hear and identify a specific problem in the first place.

+1 to this. If your mix sounds muddy to you, cutting some low end off some stuff would be a good place to start. But there could be plenty other reasons why a mix is muddy.

 

[Greg_L]

Bad advice never dies.

G.

+10000000000000000000000000000

Bad, bad, bad advice.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Hey SouthSIDE, would you mind elaborating on why this is a bad practice to employ? Thanks.

Chibi said it very succinctly. Let me respond similarly by saying that "consensus" is part of the general mindset that music mixing is something done by formula; i.e. that there are specific settings that apply to all situations.

There aren't.

EQ - and compression and reverb and everything else - are things that one uses to achieve specific desired results or to solve specific problems. If those problems don't exist, don't use them. If they do exist, use only the minimum necessary to get the desired results.

If you have a low-frequency buildup that's unwanted, then high pass/low cut as necessary to solve that problem. But if you don't then don't try and solve a problem that doesn't exist. You could wind up throwing out some babies with the not-so-dirty bathwater. But to just cut everything automatically just numbs your brain to that part of the spectrum, and one's brain should never be numbed to *any* part of the spectrum.

G.

 

[bdam123]

Got it.

With that said, I'm gonna admit that my "mixing" ear in very much in its infancy. So even identifying a problem area is difficult for me. All I know is that the last mix I did (where I low cut everything) has a lot more clarity than my previous mixes.

Are there any techniques to help identify problem areas for someone who's ear is still developing?

I'm starting to realize that mixing is a very delicate art. The slightest amount of EQ can really mean the difference between a great mix and shitty one. More advice on how to really hone in on those fine lines would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[mixsit]

..Are there any techniques to help identify problem areas for someone who's ear is still developing? ..

Some more on the low end.
Try pulling things in and out of the mix and look for how much and in which ways they are contributing. In particular you're looking how the low end is getting shaped -in the final combination.
Now let's expand 'shape to mean two things- The frequency curve, and the envelope. I.e, the kick's hit -the accent, it's sustain, the bass's sustain, their combined effect in both shape and frequency.
That plus some of the other filling instruments defines the style and tone down there.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

With that said, I'm gonna admit that my "mixing" ear in very much in its infancy. So even identifying a problem area is difficult for me. All I know is that the last mix I did (where I low cut everything) has a lot more clarity than my previous mixes.

I don't honestly know which way to interpret this. Either your ears are actually good enough where you identified that you had more clarity and it was good, or that increased clarity was a illusion caused by your inexperienced ears.

I'm not sure how to answer your question, because I am about the only one here who does not understand how one who has not "gotten their ears" yet can expect to mix music. It seems simple to me that one has to come before the other.

But a good place to start I think would be to give this thread a complete read. It's kinda long, but there's a lot of great stuff in there on what to listen to and how to listen with a critical or analytical ear.

G.

 

[miroslav]

All I know is that the last mix I did (where I low cut everything) has a lot more clarity than my previous mixes.

What type of monitor system are you using?
Maybe it's the monitors...maybe the room...maybe both...that is making your low end muddy...?

Extended high end (also can be perceived when lows are cut across the board) can make things sound as though there is more clarity...but that can also fatigue the ears.

Unless you are monitoring on a wide/flat bandwidth system...you may not really be hearing your mix as it sounds.

I avoid cutting/boosting anything during tracking or as a regular MO during mixing. Each mix should tell you what to do, but again, proper monitoring is key.

 

[mixsit]

I don't honestly know which way to interpret this. Either your ears are actually good enough where you identified that you had more clarity and it was good, or that increased clarity was a illusion caused by your inexperienced ears.

I'm not sure how to answer your question, because I am about the only one here who does not understand how one who has not "gotten their ears" yet can expect to mix music. It seems simple to me that one has to come before the other.

But a good place to start I think would be to give this thread a complete read. It's kinda long, but there's a lot of great stuff in there on what to listen to and how to listen with a critical or analytical ear.

G.

One thing that happens with let's say 'global cuts' would be yes, it cleans up', and simplifies the low end.
Agreed it might be a begining, rather than the' correct end in it's self, but we're all somewhere along this line in the learning process.

 

[Greg_L]

What type of monitor system are you using?
Maybe it's the monitors...maybe the room...maybe both...that is making your low end muddy...?

Extended high end (also can be perceived when lows are cut across the board) can make things sound as though there is more clarity...but that can also fatigue the ears.

Unless you are monitoring on a wide/flat bandwidth system...you may not really be hearing your mix as it sounds.

I avoid cutting/boosting anything during tracking or as a regular MO during mixing. Each mix should tell you what to do, but again, proper monitoring is key.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^

It might just be your room. Chances are it is.

 

[kcearl]

i refuse to change...i shall continue cutting...i foresee a future world where woofers are outlawed..my music and I shall be ready.....


Ive even decided to cut kick drums completely from the mix

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Agreed it might be a begining, rather than the' correct end in it's self, but we're all somewhere along this line in the learning process.

Not to get too far into it but I don't see it that way myself. "Learning" the falsehood that such global fixes are OK is sending them down the wrong line of learning, IMHO, and their mix ability will just wind up hitting a dead end long before they get to where they want to be.

You gotta have the ears in order to mix, and you gotta use those ears to actually do the mix. If one wants to try and develop their ears while mixing instead of before mixing (a mistake, IMHO), it'll never happen if they learn to believe in "global fixes", because those kinds of ideas are anathema to ear development. Ears are like muscles, you gotta use them in order to build them up. In that light, someone being a newb at this IMHO should depend upon using their ear even more so; the quicker they learn they need to work and follow their ears, the quicker they'll be able to depend upon them and the quicker their mixes will benefit.

G.

 

[kcearl]

actually joking aside I've seen this on far to many articles and tutorials to ignore it..

Do you think it maybe genre specific because Ive watched tutorials by pretty successful producers and they are cutting everything except the bass and kick...

I've also watch a couple of mastering tutorials and they will also make a further cut at the mastering stage..

I'm not saying you guys are wrong, as I was discussing this in the mp3 clinic previously and what was being said made sense, but these are people earn a very good living at what many of us can barely make a hobby out of??

 

[kcearl]

Not to get too far into it but I don't see it that way myself. "Learning" the falsehood that such global fixes are OK is sending them down the wrong line of learning, IMHO, and their mix ability will just wind up hitting a dead end long before they get to where they want to be.

You gotta have the ears in order to mix, and you gotta use those ears to actually do the mix. If one wants to try and develop their ears while mixing instead of before mixing (a mistake, IMHO), it'll never happen if they learn to believe in "global fixes", because those kinds of ideas are anathema to ear development. Ears are like muscles, you gotta use them in order to build them up. In that light, someone being a newb at this IMHO should depend upon using their ear even more so; the quicker they learn they need to work and follow their ears, the quicker they'll be able to depend upon them and the quicker their mixes will benefit.

G.

or on the other hand if these frequencies often offer nothing, or not much, to the mix other than making it more difficult to maximise the tracks loudness, or add muddiness, then just extract them rather than go through years of training your ears to recognise frequencies that are borderline infrasound?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

actually joking aside Ive seen this on far to many articles and tutorials to ignore it..

Do you think it maybe genre specific because Ive watch tutorials by pretty successful producers and they are cutting everything except the bass and kick...

Ive also watch a couple of mastering tutorials and they will also make a futher cut at the mastering stage..

Im not saying you guys are wrong, as I was discussing this in the mp3 clinic previously and what was being said made sense, but these are people earning a very good living at what many of us can barely make a hobby out of??

Two things there. First is the bias of "professionalism". Enron, Goldman Sachs, Chrysler and Toyota were and are all run by professionals also. George W. Bush was a "professional", as was Michael Jackson's doctor. Those two pilots who flew past their landing by a few hundred miles because they "got distracted by their laptops" were "professionals". The Chicago Cubs are a "professional" baseball team...supposedly. Do we really want to hold any of them up as examples to follow? Do you really want to use the average state of today's production values in the rapidly declining music industry as the gold standard by which we should learn to produce music? The average commercial production to make the top 100 these days sounds awful nine different ways to Sunday.

Second, what others do is irrelevant, pro or amateur. Use your head, work from first principles. Fuck what the Joneses are doing. Which answer really make more sense on it's own merits, to treat every sound as if it sounds the same, or to do each different sound what that sound needs done?

G.

 

[kcearl]

Two things there. First is the bias of "professionalism". Enron, Goldman Sachs, Chrysler and Toyota were and are all run by professionals also. George W. Bush was a "professional", as was Michael Jackson's doctor. Those two pilots who flew past their landing by a few hundred miles because they "got distracted by their laptops" were "professionals". The Chicago Cubs are a "professional" baseball team...supposedly. Do we really want to hold any of them up as examples to follow? Do you really want to use the average state of today's production values in the rapidly declining music industry as the gold standard by which we should learn to produce music? The average commercial production to make the top 100 these days sounds awful nine different ways to Sunday.

Second, what others do is irrelevant, pro or amateur. Use your head, work from first principles. Fuck what the Joneses are doing. Which answer really make more sense on it's own merits, to treat every sound as if it sounds the same, or to do each different sound what that sound needs done?

G.

while I agree with your sentiments


Again these are tutorials by people who make a living...not from something behind closed doors, or underhand deals, or in the depths of the White house but with music we listen to everyday..and a far better living than Id guess 100% of people who contribute here (though you may have off shore accounts we know nothing of )

Ive heard many of these producers tracks and they are perfect for the genre they are, Id cut my arm of to get to that level of sound...and again they sell how many units?

So while we can dismiss them here and then possibly mumble how the music buying public are all dynamic infidels but there has to be some merit to it??


shit Im lucky if my ears even find anything under 50Hz anyway...so if thats the same with 90% of the world then training your ears for years ( ) benefits who exactly?


sorry, not being standoffish..I just genuinely have a conflict with what Im reading here and what Im watching and reading in the music world


again could it just be genre specific??

 

[Chibi Nappa]

or on the other hand if these frequencies often offer nothing, or not much, to the mix other than making it more difficult to maximise the tracks loudness, or add muddiness, then just extract them rather than go through years of training your ears to recognise frequencies that are borderline infrasound?

That's backwards. If you train your ears to recognize useless loudness-killing mud, you won't record it in the first place. That will lead to better mic technique, better tone selection, better instrument selection and all that.

Or don't learn anything and keep cutting blindly with your fingers crossed.