Mixes are too Bass-Heavy

  • Thread starter Thread starter fink
  • Start date Start date
F

fink

New member
We have worked on a number of independently-released hip-hop albums, aired from Texas to New York, but we have one recurring problem: all of my mixes tend to be bass-heavy. When I EQ some of the bass out, I tend to overdo it a bit. With hip-hop, that's just no good.

I use Event Tria monitors if that's any help. I think they play -too- clean.

Any suggestions, or additional information you might need to help me?
 
question! Are you having the final mix mastered? That could help if you don't. Also at what volumes are you mixing the songs? The human ear has the most flat responce between 75 and 80db. So that might help some.
 
Hmmmmmmm..

"The human ear has the most flat responce between 75 and 80db. So that might help some."

The Fletcher and Munson Relative Loudness Curves suggest that the ear hears all frequencies more "flat" at somewhere above 110db or so.

But, Wally is making an excellent point. If you are mixing at low volumes, you will tend to want to boost bass more then you should.

Try mixing at louder volumes.

Ed
 
or...

your room is a little bass heavy..do you have bass traps? Since you said all your mixes are coming out bass heavy, it seems yuor mixing room need help..or learn not to put so much bass in relative to your mixing room.

can monitors be "too clean" hmmmmmmmmmmm....


ametth
 
A link...

http://www.silcom.com/~aludwig/images/Fletcher-Munson.jpg

Just so you can see for yourself where you hearing is most "flat".

ametth has a decent point here.

Also, you may try boosting the bass on your Event's. I believe they allow you to set the relative level between the sub and high boxes don't they? If not, then you will just have to learn what the difference is.

Ed
 
More on this Subject

WallyCleaver - No, I have not had anythng mastered. I have heard that I have access to some mastering software, but am yet to use it.

Wallycleaver & Sonusman - I would not call the volumes I mix at "low" by any means. I am 24 yrs. old (I like shit rather loud.)

Ametth - In my mixing room, the mixes sound really good, hence the comment about the monitors being too "clean". They are bass-heavy everywhere else.

Sonusman - I tried to compensate wih the bass control on the monitors.

Who does a good mastering job, cheap?
 
well...

then you still have a problem with bass in your room..you neeed to mix on the lite bass side if they're too heavy everywhere else...good luck.
 
Sorry to disagree but according to Fletcher-Munson 85db is the flattest volume to our ears. If you mix louder you will be bass light, lower bass heavy. The loudness switch was invented to compensate for the ear at low levels by boosting the bass and the highs.

Most people will have the loudness control on their system or the bass boost in their car etc so you have to be bit bass light to start with if you want your track to sound OK up against the others. All a mastering engineer is going to do is to roll the bass off your mix which is not always complimentary to your mix, you must get it right to start with.

Look fink this is the most common problem in mixing. What you have to do is learn what flat is on your speakers by playing lots of CDs and listening to the bottom end and matching that with your mixes.

Cheers
John :)
 
Sorry about the phrasing sounsman, the least damaging to your ears and hasmost flat responce. Sorry about that.
Anyway about the room, it can't be to bass heavy because then you would go overboard on the mid or high end. If it's the room, I think it's high end could be a problem because it you are hearing tons of high end you'll push the bass to match, then when played in a car or home stereo it comes across bass heavy.
 
Okay John, I am game! :)

Lets take a look at that curve again and explore why I feel that 90-95 is a better volume to mix at.

One look at the curve shows that 5KHz, a very problematic frequency range in digital recordings, tends to be more responsive to out ears up closer to 100db. Also, at 100Hz, where a lot of the power of a mix exists, at close to 100db, you need about 2 db less of it to sound flat.

Down below 80db, things really start getting squirly because you really need to start bumping up low end to make it sound flat. Taking bad room designs into account, and bad resolution cabling in many home studios, I don't think excessive adding of low end is adviseable! If the mix winds up needing a 2db boost over all in the low end to make it really powerful, I think that is better left to a mastering eq, or for the consumer to boost up a bit on their system.

While the chart shows that you are quite correct sir, I do not feel that it is a good reference volume for mixing because of the above stated reasons. I tend to mix music a bit bass light now and make up for it in mastering where I will not be playing that mix over and over for 10 hours and can make more subjective decisions on low end energy.

Wally, I understand what you are getting at about the least damaging volume, but, as John pointed out earlier, it is good to take frequent breaks while mixing to give you ears a break. If you look over the charts on hearing damage, they usually show how long of exposure you can have to a certain db before hearing damage. The nature of mixing suggests that 1- You will not have CONTINUOUS noise and 2- You will have frequent breaks that last longer then the time it takes to rewind the tape to the beginning.

What I am getting at is that if you are taking frequent breaks, your ears can handle higher db exposure over the period of a day before any hearing damage.

I like to use 90-95db A weighted as my reference level while mixing/mastering. I have found that my mixes achieve far greater smoothness then at lower volumes, and that I don't tend to bloat the bass as much. With frequent breaks, hearing fatique doesn't set in until around that 6-8 hour, so I can get a lot done in that time. Usually the last 2-4 hours I spend on a mix is running mixes with certain parts turned up or and down, and also dealing with mute automation and what not. The first 4-6 hours is where most of my eq and level decisions are made, and they are made when the ears a the freshest.

Ed
 
90 - 95 yeah that's OK I'll go along with that - it was the 110+ that you stated first that I was disagreeing with ;)

Cheers Ed
John
 
Ahhhhhhhhh...

I was actually using that in response about where the flattest curve was at. Actually, after checking, the relative loudness doesn't start getting really close until around 130db!!!

I tend not to worry so much about the upper frequencies in the curves and how they stack up because not too much energy in a mix is up there, and if it is a little hyped at mix, it is not going to hurt much.

But the lower mids and what seem to really muck up most peoples mixes, and I think a monitoring level that has a curve where the lower mids are mostly flat is important, thus, the 90-95db range because it is an excellent trade off between "close" to flat curves, and the ability to monitor at that volume for long enough to actually get a decent mix before hearing fatique sets in.

Cheers to you John! :) (I was actually hoping for a rebuttle on monitoring levels because I choose 90-95 more on intuition and the fact that with a very clean system and monitoring amp, this would also mostly cover the dynamic range of D/A converters too. If that was a bad db to reference at, I wanted to know, and to know why. But alas!, you agreed! :))

Ed
 
Sorry Ed - perhaps I'm being too reasonable - but I'm sure you will agree that the main cause of too much low end in mixing is because of the fact that Flat is Flat as opposed to that nice lift in the bottom and top which we refer to as the loudness control which is used in most Hifi systems and in cars etc.

My philosphy is - take care of the lows, and the highs will take care of themselves. I must say I miss the old VU meters where you could get a good idea of where the energy is in your mixes - i.e. a bass would peak to zero whereas a hihat would hardly move the meter yet both could peak to zero on a peak meter. I suppose I 'm ultra sensitive to bottom end also because I grew up with the Vinyl Disc where too much low end could make it uncuttible on a disc cutter.

cheers
John :D
 
Yes.....

And we are actually on to the same thing, just don't know it.

Yes, one MUST take into account that the average home stereo system will have enhanced low's and high's with the Loudness knob, or other such enhancements. You definately need to learn to hear low end a lot differently with near field monitors. No big bass sounds there!!!

So my point being that a monitoring level where you are not AS tempted to add low end is desireable. Monitoring a little louder while mixing will help tame the over compensation of low end in the mix so that when one does play it back on consumer playback systems, it won't send the drivers into the next county from all the low end! :)

So, we probably both agree that a monitoring level which isn't as flat in the low end would not be so desireable really.

Right?

Ed
 
Yeah - I suppose so - 100 how about that? - I reckon a big 15" mounted into the correct wall installation with a good big amp in a good room is the best - It's sort of like a big magnifying glass, the kick goes from the floor to halfway up the wall!!!

Cheers
John :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top