|
Mastering: why are most trance tracks equalized "V-shaped" instead of "flat"?!
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dance123 |
Hi,
Why are most trance trance tracks (and dance music in general) equalized "V-shaped"?! V-shape means that the low and high frequencies are boosted, while the mid frequencies are cut.
Now, why should you cut the mid frequencies? Am I the only one who prefers the presence of mid frequencies, which gives much more clarity, detail to a mix. Isn't it so that the general rule in pro mastering is that you create a track with a flat frequency response so that all frequencies are present? Actually, System F's "Out of the blue" is a good example of a track that is EQ'd well in my opinion as it isn't V-shaped and has a flat frequency responce I think. Note that this track was professionally mastered. If you have this track on CD like I do, you can hear it is well balanced in all frequencies and has alot of clarity that I think alot of other trance tracks miss, cause I also have alot of CD's with trance tracks that sound way too bass heavy and lack clarity. Anybody can give an overview of which frequencies are cut the most and why and which one are emphasized in trance production? Also, should you master a CD different then vinyl?!
Anybody can tell more about all this and why so many dance producers choose to EQ "V-shaped", even in radio edits on CD?!
I hope this becomes an interesting thread with usefull info/tips from people with experience! Thanks in advance! |
|
|
| Axolotyl |
| Not sure if were talking about the same thing, but most trance tracks I look at in a spectral analyzer have more of a midrange to upper midrange boost with a huge cut at about 13-15 KHz. How are you getting this V shaped impression? |
|
|
| BOOsTER |
I believe V-Shaped EQ is mostly done to club mixes...
as they do care most for the basses and highs :D
actually at very big volume you hear this V-Shaped mix quite well...atleast its what a friend told me about this some years ago |
|
|
| Rob |
Firstly the way a track is mastered onto a CD is to an extent a subjective "artistic" decision made by the mastering engineer. A Dance CD with uplifting/prog/breaks/house tracks is ment to take the listener on a voyage, from lows, to uplifting highs, and the way a track is eq'd against the other tracks is a subjective decision made by the mastering engineer.
The mastering engineer may decide to make the opening track (ie. JOOF - The Nazarean) quieter with the high freqencies rolled off to give the CD a steady build up, in comparison to Nu-Nrg - Dreamland, which is ment to smack the listener in the face with uplifting highs later on in the CD.DEMO
Another thing about tracks on such mix cd's is that each track will have different prominant elemets, and will therefore have different eq curves. A track with a prominant kick and hihats will have a V eq curve, while uplifting trance where every frequency is filled(ie. Armin vs. System F - Exhale) will be VERY flat. 99% of tracks on CD's however follow a frequency curve that falls off towards the highend ie. 200hz@0db grandually falling off to around -15db@20Khz.
In conclusion, the elements within a track are what generally make up the eq curve it will follow. Tracks can all have different eq curves, as long as the perceived loudness between the tracks are consitent. |
|
|
| Storyteller |
| There is a simple answer. V-shaped music just sounds better for the average listenet (counting out engineers and other top notch music nerds here). Every decent stereo makes the tracks v-shaped too just because it makes the sound more massive and enjoyable. |
|
|
| Dance123 |
Hi,
Could people with experience in this perhaps give an overview of which frequencies should best be cut and which boosted for extra clarity. Also explain a bit why the frequencies need to be cut or boosted. Like, is it so that 200Hz or so is the muddy area or something? Why? It's that kind of info I am looking for..
Also mention which kind of trance you're talking about, like vocal trance (think an Armin van Buuren track) or instrumental stuff like "Out of the blue" or Anjunabeats etc..
Thanks for all usefull info! |
|
|
| Tech0rz |
First off i guess it depends what type of sound you're trying to master into the mix. It depends on how you want the end product to sound also.
I'm not sure its about what frequencies you should just cut, but more about what frequencies you cut to allow room for other sounds. I mean if you feel you're lacking in a certain range, you may feel it necessary to boost something into that gap, or you may not. It's about how you want it to sound.
I think like Storyteller said, "V-Shaped" mixes sound better. Alot of mids in a track makes it sound thick and unless you're after that quality in your track, there is obviously less need for mid range frequencies for the track to still sound complete.
But, by any means, don't get so caught up in how the mix looks on the screen. People listening to the track won't know/care, unless they're narrow minded critics, or its constructive critisism, but then you can say, but thats how i want the damn track to sound.
But if you REALLY want to get specific. Just read articles such as this
http://www.futureproducers.com/foru.../threadid/29861
and threads like this
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...ht=Equalization |
|
|
| DigiNut |
It's called the Disco Smile, it's been around for a good 30 years, and it's done because it sounds good, especially in clubs.
Mind you, be careful of referring to it as equalized, because in many instances this isn't the case. The disco smile in a lot of trance music comes more from heavy bass compression (since both the kick and bass need to be loud for clubs), harmonic frequencies of all the supersaws/superstrings used, as well as the many high-pitched synths and atmospheric effects. I think it's rare for a significant amount of eq'ing to actually be done to the master track. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| hehe, what can i say.. i thought i missed alot as i realised i hadd to little of MID frequencies in my tracks, while it turns out its how they are most often made to sound..:) |
|
|
| pho mo |
| Usually when looking at EQ charts for individual instruments, you'll see 200 - 850Hz described as the 'muddiness' area. Perhaps the V-shape overall EQ sounds better because it cuts out some of the mud? Pure speculation on my part :D |
|
|
| Atlantis-AR |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dance123
Hi,
Could people with experience in this perhaps give an overview of which frequencies should best be cut and which boosted for extra clarity. Also explain a bit why the frequencies need to be cut or boosted. Like, is it so that 200Hz or so is the muddy area or something? Why? It's that kind of info I am looking for..
Also mention which kind of trance you're talking about, like vocal trance (think an Armin van Buuren track) or instrumental stuff like "Out of the blue" or Anjunabeats etc..
Thanks for all usefull info! |
As Storyteller and others have already said, a U-shaped EQ curve sounds better and is perceived as being louder to the average listener. However, taken to extreme it can make your music sound boomy and brittle, which seems to be a trend in todays 'amateur' music - bass and treble syndrome, as I've heard it being refered to as well.
EQ'ing during mastering isn't so much a time to "reduce 200 - 850 Hz" to reduce muddiness, as this should've been fixed in the mix. A slight cut here can help however, although counteracting muddiness doesn't really lead to this U-shaped curve effect. It's more so in over-boosting the bottom-end and overusing the use of a harmonic exciter in the higher frequency bands (perhaps along with boosting as well). Sucking out the mids has a slightly different effect.
Anyway, my take on it is that it shouldn't be done to such extremes as I often hear, and that really all music should of course be mastered with a flat frequency curve in mind. However, taking things a little 'further' can give your music a certain character, and as a U-shaped curve is perceived as making the sound louder and more impressive, what better reason to do so when mastering EDM music? As I said though, it's not advised to take this concept too far or it just isn't going to translate well on all those different setups.
In answer to your post, for clarity, try a subtle boost in the ~4 kHz to ~6 kHz range, with perhaps a slight cut in the lower mid range (around 262-523 Hz) to reduce muddiness or possible resonances, which would otherwise mask the clarity of the sound. However, as I already said, although these days mastering seems to be more of a rescue mission rather than actually focusing on sweetening up the sound, EQ'ing of such sort should really be done in the mixing stage (although a slight cut to counteract any fundamental frequency build-up, and thus muddiness may be good thing during mastering).
That said, I often like to reduce a little in the ~3 kHz range during mastering, which actually has a similar effect as the U-curve, only with a much more subtle result. It can really bring out the power in the bottom end, while at the same time unmasking the 'presence' area between ~4 kHz and ~6 kHz, as well as the higher bands.
As for why the frequencies need to be cut or boosted, there are a lot of reasons for doing this. You may want to change the tonal quality of a sound, or get it to work better when mixed with other sounds etc. The ~200 Hz band simply leads to 'muddiness' because that's where the fundamental frequencies of instruments often reside, which can mask the higher fundamentals, and which in turn lead to clarity and timbre. This lower mid range just contains the kind of frequencies that tend to mask the quality of sounds, that's all. Sweep through a parametric equaliser and that should give you a much better explanation. :) |
|
|
| Samplecraze |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
[COLOR=#99CCEE]It's called the Disco Smile, it's been around for a good 30 years, and it's done because it sounds good, especially in clubs.
COLOR] |
That's actually quite close to the truth.
The curve has been around for years and is called the 'smile' curve.
It is predominantly used by PA engineers in setting up live rigs, thus the club seetings.
However, it is also a setting used by some mastering engineers as we try to compensate for the way frequencies move. You tend to find that high frequencies dissipate much quicker and low frequencies get absorbed leaving mid to high low frequency content, all this in a cluib environment.. You have to remember that in live gigs, or club scenarios, the bodies themselves are absorbers for both low and high frequencies.The beass cannot then extend properly and needs boosting. The higher frequencies need to be boosted to accomodate the dominance of mid frequencies and to compensate for dissipation.
In normal mastering, this is usually ignored as the extension of all frequencies must be nominal to meet standards. |
|
|
|
|
