|
bass eq-ing - which method?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| KID-M |
I know that along with most other things it probably depends on the tracks being mixed and your style of mixing but what are the pros/cons of these 2 ways of bringing in the new track (yes I searched):
1. Bring in the new track with its bass down (and mids/highs down if appropriate) and increase the new bass while taking the old tracks bass down (either slowly or quickly or an instantaneous swap)
2. Bring in the new track with bass full up while taking out the old tracks bass (either slowly or quickly or an instantaneous swap). Sometimes this way sounds "cleaner" to me or it creates a nice slam-in of the new bassline if the new one is stronger. Not saying that it matters, but it sounds like PVD does this from listening to some live mixes. Anyones else notice that?
Hopefully I explained this right – essentially they are the opposite. I’ve been playing around with both methods but was wondering what you guys thought.
Thanks |
|
|
| EPoC |
personally here's how mine usually go.. although not always, depending on the track/style..
rule #1: don't ever use the crossfader.. i would just assume rip the bugger right off my mixer for all the good it does
bring in new track, bass low, just above cut-off lvl
mids/highs at around half
as mid/highs come in, lower other track levels, bring in bass, slowly lower other bass to compensate, keep an eye on your gain levels (if you have a visual indicator eg: jumping lights),
whenever possible, try to incorporate semi-dramatic "entrances" with bass on key with the end of a 16 count or 8, sometimes sounds good, sometimes it won't matter.
rule #2: if you ever start to flail on a mix and you're THIS CLOSE to it being done, you can always cover up a lot of potential disaster by near killing the bass (on the track you're mixing out of) and FLANGE *lol* not everyone is going to agree with me, but it saved me a couple times when i first started :)
** as for the methods you mentioned, a lot of the time when playing live, the only way to mix in a track is to mix it with the bass UP, otherwise you can't hear jack in your headphones even if they're cranked **
i also love playing live and after a buildup or 'ambient' part of a rekkid, when the bass kicks back in, have it set to about 50%, people won't usually notice, and dance like crazy, THEN after the 16 count, you crank 'er up to full again, and they go nuts :D this works especially well with tekno to keep it interesting and not so over repetitive and predictable (as much tekno is victim to)
-=:EPoC:=- |
|
|
| Dj Flesch |
It's been a while since I've found a post worth my time to respond, so hi to all you TAs that have missed me ;)
As far as technique goes, it doesn't matter which one you use, even if it isn't one of those two. There are only a couple of rules that you have to follow to make your transition good, and it doesn't matter HOW you do it, as long as you follow the rules.
First, you must respect the gain structure. By this, I mean that you have to keep the volume levels of each of the tracks such that the master volume doesn't drop or raise considerably when you try to transition. If you prefer to take the bass out of the incoming track as you make the mids and highs the same levels or rather take the bass out of the live track, it doesn't matter. Which one can you do the smoothest? That is the one that you should use. The only advantages to either one is which one you can perform the best and most consistently. You may find that one way is better for some tracks and the other is better for other tracks (ie if the bass is higher on the incoming track, you may find it easier to drop the bass on that track and then switch the bass once the channel volume on both tracks is all the way up...or you could be the other way around!).
The second rule that you must respect is what I like to call "Incremental Mixing". This technique is pretty difficult to master so that you have a "perfect transition", but I believe that it is more versital over how you mix, in the long run, becuase you can effectively mix tracks with very different bass beats this way. This works because if you do what I call "incremental mixing" then the bass beat come in phrase all the time.
Incremental mixing is a technique I taught myself to overcome the fact that I wasn't bringing my cue tracks in in-phrase all of the time. The two tracks were in phrase with eachother, but what the audience was hearing wasn't. I.e. Both tracks were in phrase, but the audience would hear the the first beat of the cue track come in as both tracks were on beat 2 or 3 or 4 of the phrasing. So how do you do this? If you move the volume slider up in small increments right before beat 1, then whenever the cue track is loud enough to be heard from the master out, it will always be heard first on beat one because that is when you increased the volume. I have found that mixing this was lends itself to a very smooth bass switchover as well as keeping everything in phrase with respect to the audience/recording.
Incremental mixing applies to everything you do as well. Effects, transitions, whatever, make every knob adjustment or button press on beat one! |
|
|
| Nemesis44 |
Some good info there from Epoc.
| quote: | | rule #1: don't ever use the crossfader.. i would just assume rip the bugger right off my mixer for all the good it does |
Amen to that! Crossfaders are the tools of Satan!
I never really bother with the mids during a mix. If you have chosen your record well (in relation to key) you wont need to. Can also depend on the quality of the EQs though.
As far as the methods you mentioned go I would say that you should use both and learn some more. It all depends on the records you are mixing. I also like to play with the EQs flipping bits from different tracks back and foward. It's worth remembering that when you play a big club system it's often the case that stuff you do with the higher end sound wont always be fully appreciated as the sound may not be like it is at home and can get lost.
With regards to your question as in what are the pros and cons... well it's not that easy to answer as with some track combinations there may be none.
I use both and then some variations on those with some other things. I would say that the second option is good for getting the crowd excited and works when you want to fire the place up a bit. You will probably find though that PvD like many others doesn't have the bass on the incomming all the way up but it's definately higher than it would be in the first scenario.
When I mix tracks I also work a lot with the gains. Sometimes I like to make the incomming track a little louder than the outgoing just to play around with people.
It takes time and it's something that has to be discovered and can't really be taught, but you will eventually feel when the right time is for these different things to take place.
Cheers
Nem
EDIT = Hey Flesch, didn't see you there :) |
|
|
| failsafe |
| why do so many people hate the cross fader? |
|
|
| onceler |
| because of the fading part, many are set like an X rather than fading one record in while not fading the other one. plus, when doing long, gradual mixes, it is just another, repititious piece that is not needed. |
|
|
| EPoC |
i dislike crossfaders because of the lack of control, many have too steep of a gain (think hyperbolic arc/curve) when fading in. With vertical sliders you have more control over gain, EQs, etc
My gf is a jungle/DnB DJ, she loves the thing :D it works well for her genre of music and mixing style
-=:EPoC:=- |
|
|
| ex-dj |
I like the crossfader on my Pioneer DJM-500, it makes quite smooth transitions. But yeah, I've used a few mixers where it was way too sharp and the only way to do a decent mix was with the individual volume faders.
Anyway on the bass EQing, I look at it as a balance... if you have full bass from both tracks it will usually sound like crap, as one goes up the other should go down. And Flesch is right on with doing everything in phase, if the basslines are real close you can gradually drop one and raise the other, but if they are very distinguishable I'll usually swith from one to the other rapidly when a new phase starts, or sometimes you can just wait for it to drop out in the track itself.
I used to do every mix like #1 but know I decide based on what will sound best for the song and flow. |
|
|
| Freak |
I will rarely use the x fader- most pro djs i know dont use it much- i will use it occasionally for drum& bass, or garage or something- but i rarely use it for hip hop either... More control using the channel faders, although i admit i did use it religously when i started out years ago. Was a tough habit to break
No rules as such i stick by- if i think it will sound good i will try it
I will normally keep the bass down on the incoming track and then do an instantaneous swap over, or sometimes might kill all the bass for a bar or two then drop the new one in just to create some impact..
Whichever one is up though, the other one is down otherwise you get the cancellation and over emphasis of certain beats which drives me up the wall...If one is at 50% ill probably put the other at 50%
I kind of look at it as having one 100% to allocate to the bass- you can give half to each, or full to one and 0 to the other, or some proportion of the total to each
I do actually use the mids a fair bit. On the outgoing track i will often turn the bass eq right down, turn the mid up a tad and drop the fader a tad...works especially well with vocals still going on the outgoing tune |
|
|
| BelgianGuru |
| Crossfaders should only be used for scratching, for the rest leave the suckers alone. Most tables have ty x-faders anyway |
|
|
| failsafe |
| what about the fader on a djm-500 as that's teh mixer I have now? I actually liked the fader on teh djm-300 i had before it a bit better. It was more gradual then the 500. |
|
|
|
|
