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

[Pykon]

I know you're looking for simple rote procedures and recipes, we'd all love that. But honestly, pykon, that's just not how it works. If you want a starting point to work from, the best - and really the *only* - starting point is to listen to what you have in front of you and work from there. grab your favorite EQ and start working it over your track(s), paying attention to what the numbers on the EQ itself say, so that you can learn to associate sounds with frequencies and certain results with certain settings.

G.

Well,

I'm used to turning my ears as the main headlights in the darknes of my sonic ignorance (or unawareness). This way of learning mixing experience is a great and - I believe - unending adventure, and sometimes takes so long that I simply start thinking: Am I on the right path?

To find individual way of sound for each mix I always start from scratch - no pre-programmed eq's, multitrack templates etc - to keep the door open. If I read some suggestions here, I don't apply them as they are if they are not working the way I'm looking for - that way of experimenting just tells me what I can do, not what's right. You think doing so I'm on the wrong way? I'm not against what you say, just opened for suggestions.

And to put this discussion into context - what forced me to write this post was the bass track that crosses the frequency range limit of most stereos for several times during a song. When the bass plays A it can be heard, when C disappears in driver/amplifier filtering/splitting circuitry. That's why I asked if the bass fundamentals are reliable enough to boost them and enjoy the depth of sub-bass area in the studio and on some rare stereos.

I enjoy the discussion anyway - there's always something I can learn, especially if it's my own mistake I take criticism with some kind of pleasure and enthusiasm to improve.

And I'm sure someone else can learn from such thread, as he takes some rules as possible tricks to try and rehearse, not a ready guidelines.

Peace,

Mike

 

[miroslav]

I have noticed a very strong and disturbing current flowing through the newb sector that supports the belief that mixing is an easily quantifiable science; that all you need to know is the right formula or recipe or preset set of values, and everything just falls into place.

Har-Bal

And - as you discovered in our little dust-up over panning vocals a while back, miro (not that I want to start that again ) - I personally have a real fundamental problem with the idea of arbitrary "starting points.

I always understood your reasons, Glen.

I guess I was looking it at from my own personal experiences, where when someone gave me a starting point in my early days, I always understood it as just that, a *starting point*...and then I would take it from there and experiment.

But I think these days many newbies (not all) are not really interested in exploring or working too hard at this recording stuff...they just want the shortcuts, quick-n-dirty...

 

[Manslick]

I follow this to the letter.

http://www.alexandermagazine.com/recordingeq/eq/req0104/bass.htm

Then I compress the hell out of it. Adjust the fader. Done.

 

[kcearl]

they should have a mixing preset then you wouldnt have to read all this....

 

[Simman]

And - as you discovered in our little dust-up over panning vocals a while back, miro (not that I want to start that again ) - I personally have a real fundamental problem with the idea of arbitrary "starting points", mostly for the reasons I gave in the last post here. Whether we're talking panning, EQ, compression, or any other type of signal processing, there already is an arbitrary starting point; it's called "bypass" or "neutral".

On it's face, that is just as good and as valid of a starting point ans any other set of parameters as one may give; it has an equal chance of being just as right or as wrong as any other suggestion. But it also has an added advantage over any other; it forces one to actually listen to what they have in front of them as it is, and by listening to what they have as the real starting point, to figure out without prejudice where to go from there.

G.

There is a ton of truth in this! I would go so far as to add that the "starting point" is actually the tracking. If you actually got it sonically "right" while tracking, there is little need to do much of anything else. Mixes tend to fall into place with much less effort when you're working with source material that have been tracked well.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

I guess I was looking it at from my own personal experiences, where when someone gave me a starting point in my early days, I always understood it as just that, a *starting point*...and then I would take it from there and experiment.

But that's what Glen was saying. Any setting transplanted from one production to another is totally arbitrary, worthless at best, and destructive at worst. Even if you tell yourself "this is just a starting point".

Say Butch Vig tells you he cut the bass guitar 3 decibels at 330 Hz when mixing Cherub Rock. You are trying to record a cover of Cherub Rock and you want it to mimic the original exactly.

That 3 db cut at 330 Hz still does you no good at all. What if the bass guitar played on Butch Vig's tape naturally produced a sound 5 decibels louder than your bass guitar at 330 Hz? You would be cutting the exact frequency you needed to boost!

There are too many unknowns in every single production for any starting point to have meaning. Set everything to zero/center/bypass at the start of a project and just listen. That is the only starting point that makes sense.

 

[miroslav]

But that's what Glen was saying. Any setting transplanted from one production to another is totally arbitrary, worthless at best, and destructive at worst. Even if you tell yourself "this is just a starting point".

Say Butch Vig tells you he cut the bass guitar 3 decibels at 330 Hz when mixing Cherub Rock. You are trying to record a cover of Cherub Rock and you want it to mimic the original exactly.

That 3 db cut at 330 Hz still does you no good at all. What if the bass guitar played on Butch Vig's tape naturally produced a sound 5 decibels louder than your bass guitar at 330 Hz? You would be cutting the exact frequency you needed to boost!

There are too many unknowns in every single production for any starting point to have meaning. Set everything to zero/center/bypass at the start of a project and just listen. That is the only starting point that makes sense.

Not looking to get back into that whole debate...but now you are talking about all kinds of mixing decisions, many dealing with fine-tuning a mix.
I was only talking about placing the panning of the lead vocal in the center as a starting position in my debate with Glen.
I just see the lead vocal as something that does come with a certain expectation. I mean...can someone tell me what OTHER position would be more valid to begin from other than the center…AFA lead vocals go?

But I agree that some people may NOT understand that it’s OK to try different things and that nothing is an absolute rule, though I think most learn quickly enough that those knobs DO turn!

 

[mixsit]

..And to put this discussion into context - what forced me to write this post was the bass track that crosses the frequency range limit of most stereos for several times during a song.

..That's why I asked if the bass fundamentals are reliable enough to boost them and enjoy the depth of sub-bass area in the studio and on some rare stereos.

... When the bass plays A it can be heard, when C disappears in driver/amplifier filtering/splitting circuitry. ...

That's a fairly interesting thing to say about the bass track. It suggests either a track recorded with a 'hole there and something that might want to be corrected. But if you're speaking of the monitoring chain and it's only happening there it should be ignored. Could it be due to masking in the mix?
You'd want to sort that out so you're not chasing the wrong solution.
But back to that basic stuff.. In each case we are put to the task of this trim and balance act. Generally (at least as a starting point for theory' here) we don't want to chase variables in playback systems outside of the studio –a completely moving target, and certainly not to add more due to chasing flaws from within our system. All we've done is set up a decent neutral' reference view point, then the decisions on shape, level and bandwidth, hopefully some middle ground as suggested by the mix, style, ref cd's.
One work around for the 'how much low end' that might otherwise disappear on small systems is to give an appropriate amount of extension and level (shoot 'neutral, the listener is given the option and final say), but make it also speak' in overtones an octave up for the little speakers.

 

[mixsit]

please, write here how you equalize recorded bass track to fit in the mix.- do you apply low cut (say under 40 Hz) to protect low end of the mix?

Let's back up and say 'review all the tracks, sort out where all the low end contributions are coming from, and in combination(s), call that first pass clean-up. Noise, non contributing 'clutter and build-up vs. retaining appropriate musical weight here.

Do that, say with the kick and bass maybe 'roughed in', then we can get on to seeing who owns what down there, and what shape the kick and bass tones are –individually and in combination.

If so, what kind of filtering you use (shelving low or hipass) and how high are the frequency and Q values (+ gain if shelving low filtering used)?

- do you apply hi cut? If so, what kind of filtering you use (shelving high or lowpass) and how high are the frequency and Q values (+ gain if shelving high filtering used)?

- when boosting low frequencies do you accentuate individual strings and sounds with a narrow Q values or boost a certain range? If you choose the second option, you prefer a peak/dip eqing or low shelving filtering?

Let's combine these three. You understand that in all eq, match the eq to the shape at hand.
The choice of filter types can overlap in some ways, but HP, LP = continuous fall. Shelf –the shape is good = a level control (within the band). Bell/peak/dip = change the shape. A shelf or broad bell in combo with a sharp dip fix- sure if that's what's there.
Remove what's wrong or too much' first. (do least harm first IMHO). After that maybe there's a lot less to fix.

- on which frequency range you concentrate when boosting low end of the typical, simple bass line: approx. 40-70 or 80-150 Hz?

Boost? Frankly, in shooting for 'best guess appropriate weight recorded tracks (just winging it like most of us here after all ..do a lot more trimming than boosting down there. Generally have to hit the low end at least a few more times at the end. What the hell, final context' doesn't even really kick in till about then for me.

 

[NYMorningstar]

But that's what Glen was saying. Any setting transplanted from one production to another is totally arbitrary, worthless at best, and destructive at worst. Even if you tell yourself "this is just a starting point".

Say Butch Vig tells you he cut the bass guitar 3 decibels at 330 Hz when mixing Cherub Rock. You are trying to record a cover of Cherub Rock and you want it to mimic the original exactly.

That 3 db cut at 330 Hz still does you no good at all. What if the bass guitar played on Butch Vig's tape naturally produced a sound 5 decibels louder than your bass guitar at 330 Hz? You would be cutting the exact frequency you needed to boost!

There are too many unknowns in every single production for any starting point to have meaning. Set everything to zero/center/bypass at the start of a project and just listen. That is the only starting point that makes sense.

For live events, a starting point for eqing makes sense for overall settings because it saves time. If you know your room there is no reason to continually adjust the eq on your desk though I see it happen alot when bands bring in their own engineers. I look at it as they're 'fixing it in the mix' instead of fixing the source. When they're done, the desk goes right back to what's appropriate for the room.

I guess what I'm saying is don't fix the bassline in the mix, fix it before you send it to the mix. At that level for me the best starting point is ground zero and usually the responsibility of the artist.

 

[Chibi Nappa]

For live events, a starting point for eqing makes sense for overall settings because it saves time. If you know your room there is no reason to continually adjust the eq on your desk though I see it happen alot when bands bring in their own engineers.

Maybe if it is always the same band in the same room... But in most cases the sound sources are always changing and the monitors are always moving.

Even then seasons/temperature/crowd size changes things pretty dramatically. I zero the board and monitor EQ as soon as I arrive at the venue. Hell, some of the venues I work have other sound guys in on days when I'm not there. I might even zero the room EQ if they messed with it.

If anything I see it as a safe-guard against bad habits.

 

[NYMorningstar]

Hell, some of the venues I work have other sound guys in on days when I'm not there. I might even zero the room EQ if they messed with it.

If anything I see it as a safe-guard against bad habits.

I think we're kinda saying the same thing.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I just see the lead vocal as something that does come with a certain expectation. I mean...can someone tell me what OTHER position would be more valid to begin from other than the center…AFA lead vocals go?

It seems to me that one "begins from" whatever their first idea is. And that idea comes from somewhere before one actually sets a pan, whether it's an inspiration from listening to the music, a creative idea one gets beforehand (e.g. I want to try such-and-such of an idea because I think it'll sound neat when I do this other idea with the rest of the mix), or some rote formula like "lead vocals are often center-panned". Of the three, the rote formula is the only one which ignores the actual job of mixing by ignoring the actual music at hand.

OK, one could say that many folks do have a "starting point" of sorts when folks started with *everything* mono/centered in order to work on phase and EQ before they pan. That's a valid mixing technique, but I'd argue that in such cases, that is simply opportunity right there to listen to the music and get ideas for the panning while they are listening, and their first actual selected "begin from" panning scheme should come from the ideas germinated there.

To ignore that initial listen and keep the brain in neutral until after they set some formula pan scheme is nothing more than missing/skipping a step for no real reason, and chances the mistake of just mixing on autopilot.

G.

 

[miroslav]

All that othger stuff you say is fine...but 99.999999999999999999 times out of a 100...when we "think" about where the lead vocal is going to go...it's dead-center (unless it's an early 60's pop revival)

Therefore...it's pretty safe to say that's a good starting point for lead vocals....
...and then you can always pan it somewhere else if you really get the urge, but I doubt it.

 

[RAMI]

Jesus fuck!!!!!!

 

[miroslav]

Maybe we'll just call it a tie on the starting point placement of the lead vocals, Glen...
...'cuz no matter how many tiebreakers we play, the match never ends...
...and I think the crowd wants to go home!

We agree 99%...that's good enough.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

e agree 99%...that's good enough.

I don't even agree on that statement, miro, because as I see it we are worlds apart on what we believe about that subject .

It's not splitting hairs at all, it's an entirely different viewpoint. While you may automatically think 99%+ of the time "vocals down the middle", I don't think that at all, I think about the song in front of me and what will work with it, and do not consider center as a default AT ALL.

I think the ONLY thing we will ever agree upon re this topic is that we disagree on it, and shouldn't bother even discussing it anymore .

G.

 

[miroslav]

I meant that we agree about 99% of the rest of the mixing approach.

On the lead vocals we disagree 100%.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I meant that we agree about 99% of the rest of the mixing approach.

On the lead vocals we disagree 100%.

I'll agree with that

G.

 

[noisewreck]

There is no formula, it depends entirely on what one has to work with.

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