|
Mixing bass! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| TranceElevation |
| clay, don't post such graphs. Kosmotika might think it means he should cut all the mids. |
|
|
| kosmotika |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceElevation
First of all, I don't know how your first link qualifies as "everywhere" or "everyone" would tell me to, but is curious why you decided that a question, and not a certain affirmation, would translate as a "guide" to follow in your head. Also, just a little hint, the OP was referring to the eq curve of your final mixdown.
The second link, yes, is sort of a guide, but nowhere I've read the author inviting to cut all the mid frequencies.
And so, this 2 links are the reasons that made you think everywhere, everyone advices to cut all the mid frequencies? |
No, I said those are the ones I remember because those are the ones I've kept coming back to. The second one has a chart where it specifies 250-800khz as the muddy area for virtually any instrument.
Maybe you're thinking by "cutting the mids" I mean completely silencing anything between these 2 frequencies, dear god no... :nervous: |
|
|
| TranceElevation |
That range you call muddy, might also be called warmth. It depends from the perspective you know?
And what you call "clarity" could also be called as "abrasive" or "noisy" if I were to go by that logic.
You're applying wrongly adjectives to areas that may vary in function depending on the particular case.
And again, I still don't understand why those links should be your reference, or the only source, to acquire info about your mixing decisions.
Don't you have your own head, can't you contextualize, elaborate, analyze without applying everything to the letter? |
|
|
| kosmotika |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceElevation
And again, I still don't understand why those links should be your reference, or the only source, to acquire info about your mixing decisions.
Don't you have your own head, can't you contextualize, elaborate, analyze without applying everything to the letter? |
I suppose I wanted to go for the "tried and true" methods, because people would always say "too muddy" on my tracks and since I had no clue what to do to fix that, I looked up tutorials on how to master "properly" and started using the methods in the guides.
Really I just want my audio quality to meet the industry standard.:sadgreen: |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by kosmotika
>EDM
Also bass relies mostly on the low-end frequencies...that's the point of bass. First is with low end boosted, mids cut, second with mids there and no boost. Because that's how it's apparently supposed to be.
|
This is where you're wring; Bass, in the traditional engineering sense, is generally 250hz and below (some engineers will even say lower). For EDM, when people talk about "basslines" they are actually referring to Mid-lines as these are nearly always 250-500hz which are not considered "bass" to anyone who actually knows engineering, producing or composing.
As L4C and others have pointed out, true bass is something you feel rather than hear and really the only guys using true sub bass are Raggae and Dub guys.
Trance usually has incredibly basic bass (in the real sense) then relies on what are technically lower-Mid-lines, not basslines as such.
So including the other reasons I stated such as vocal range, strung instruments etc heavily occupying that rang, that's why cutting out 250 - 800 is absurd for most EDM.
| quote: | Originally posted by kosmotika
This is what I absolutely hate about some people on this site; talk a lot of crap but give little to no advice of your own and then expect anyone to know any better besides. :rolleyes: |
So after this, and several people give you stage 3 of Echosystems Noob pattern (3. Rape)
You post this:
| quote: | Originally posted by kosmotika
Thanks for the advice guys! Looney4Chooney is absolutely correct, the only reason I've been cutting mids for all tracks is that I've been reading all over that's what should be done or else your songs will sound terrible and that this is what sound engineers usually do.
I'll be sure to take what you guys have said into account. Funnily enough, I have been feeling like some of my songs are a little too clear lately...
|
That means you have fulfilled Noob pattern:
4. New guy assimilates or has a cry and never returns.
If you actually read those two links you posted, you'll see that the OP asks, and nearly everyone says NOT to do it uniformly and some state not to do it with EQ at all.
Diginut's explanation of the "DiscoSmile" in that thread is right on point and something I haven't heard mentioned in a damn long time, so thanks for inadvertently bringing it up
You'll also notice that thread is from 2005 and is essentially discussing an old technique. A lot has changed over the years and with the listening medium being nearly entirely ipoad headphones for mass consumers and they don't support deep low's or hi's very well so a lot of music these days is very Mid-y. |
|
|
| kosmotika |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
This is where you're wring; Bass, in the traditional engineering sense, is generally 250hz and below (some engineers will even say lower). For EDM, when people talk about "basslines" they are actually referring to Mid-lines as these are nearly always 250-500hz which are not considered "bass" to anyone who actually knows engineering, producing or composing.
As L4C and others have pointed out, true bass is something you feel rather than hear and really the only guys using true sub bass are Raggae and Dub guys.
Trance usually has incredibly basic bass (in the real sense) then relies on what are technically lower-Mid-lines, not basslines as such.
So including the other reasons I stated such as vocal range, strung instruments etc heavily occupying that rang, that's why cutting out 250 - 800 is absurd for most EDM.
So after this, and several people give you stage 3 of Echosystems Noob pattern (3. Rape)
You post this:
That means you have fulfilled Noob pattern:
4. New guy assimilates or has a cry and never returns.
If you actually read those two links you posted, you'll see that the OP asks, and nearly everyone says NOT to do it uniformly and some state not to do it with EQ at all.
Diginut's explanation of the "DiscoSmile" in that thread is right on point and something I haven't heard mentioned in a damn long time, so thanks for inadvertently bringing it up
You'll also notice that thread is from 2005 and is essentially discussing an old technique. A lot has changed over the years and with the listening medium being nearly entirely ipoad headphones for mass consumers and they don't support deep low's or hi's very well so a lot of music these days is very Mid-y. |
Well I'll have to disagree with that...I didn't see much advice coming my way at first, mostly just some mild beratement. The actual advice came later. ;)
As for it being an older technique, that's exactly what I'm looking for...the styles I like to work with most are the kinds of sounds you'd hear from the 1997-2003 period.
Is there a way to completely erase muddiness without making my track sound like it's playing through a tin can? I've spent a lot of time messing around and I can't seem to get things just right.
Also, thanks for the reminder about the cheaper headphones, I have several cheap pairs of earbuds I should really test my songs out on before mixing down. I've been forgetting to do that. |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by kosmotika
Is there a way to completely erase muddiness without making my track sound like it's playing through a tin can? |
Yes, bring down the specific frequencies causing the muddiness on the specific instruments causing the muddiness. But don't bring down the midrange on instruments which benefit from it (such as, generally, the main bass sound, which gets a lot of it's power/ solidity from the midrange).
Voila - no muddiness, tight and solid midrange. |
|
|
| kosmotika |
| quote: | Originally posted by derail
Yes, bring down the specific frequencies causing the muddiness on the specific instruments causing the muddiness. But don't bring down the midrange on instruments which benefit from it (such as, generally, the main bass sound, which gets a lot of it's power/ solidity from the midrange).
Voila - no muddiness, tight and solid midrange. |
I'll try re-working one of my songs with a less "by the book" approach, which is mainly what I've been doing and see how it turns out. |
|
|
| LoveHate |
| Do you want a subby kick or a subby baseline? Cus you can't have both. |
|
|
| DJ RANN |
| quote: | Originally posted by kosmotika
As for it being an older technique, that's exactly what I'm looking for...the styles I like to work with most are the kinds of sounds you'd hear from the 1997-2003 period.
|
Well this was the period (1995 to 2001) that I was DJ'ing the most in and when I started producing so I'm most familiar with this.
One thing I think you're missing is that it's not really about EQ curves or the discosmile...it was about who and how the music was made.
You have to realise that in that period, it took a serious investment, both in terms of talent, time and money to make even a simple track - there really wasn't such a thing as kids sitting in their basement with cracked DAW's and plugins churning out music they are randomly painting the notes in.
That music, essentially being a new medium (and certainly not really in the mainstream commercial domain like it is now), was this thing done by real musicians who were dabbling in this cool new dance music stuff.
That meant people who were trained on instruments, then had to buy at least $10,000 worth of kit to have a chance at making something that you could release, and even then, if you were able to make a track, you were going to have to pony up at least another $1000 just to get the minimum 500 vinyls pressed.
These were by all accounts, quality filters - only really dumb or rich (usually both) people put out bad records then because of the associated time effort and cost.
however, because there were real musicians, with real musical knowledge making dance music, what it may have lacked in production, it made up for in melody, composition and arrangement.
Also, a lot of tracks were professionally engineered as well - just because you could write a track didn't mean you could engineer it.
Tons of those guys (Jose Amnesia, Sasha, Vincent De Moor, Robert Miles, Signum, Oakenfold, Tall Paul, Jam & Spoon etc etc etc) all relied on engineers for their tracks.
Again, another filter is in place when you're paying for studio time and/or an engineers wages. I remember chatting to Luis Paris and he was getting nervous about the delays in making a couple of track to finish an album - the problem was that his engineer was going to work on another project soon and he did not want to work without him.
You have to realise at that time there were literally only one or two really nerdy guys who could do all themselves (guys like BT and orbital etc).
It took literally days to make a track, including using hardware samplers and midi sequencers and real instances of each an every synth you were going to use.Then you have to record the output of all of this to a multitrack medium and then mix that, then have it professionally mastered. Then after that a label would have to market and distribute it and actually pay you if it sold.
All a massive chain of quality control, which simply doesn't exist today.
You'd really have to work at it to make a track and that why so many of those tracks were so incredible (aside from the renaissance effect as I call where you have a group of talented people all feeding off each other's work which exponentially raises the bar both individually and collectively).
There was an interview recently with someone on ASOT (strangely enough) - I can't remember who it was but it was someone quite oldschool like JOOF or Chicane who was asked how EDM has changed over the years and why that period is considered golden. He said it was because "as a producer, you put out maybe a few tracks a year and they were a labor or love that you spent a lot, probably too much, time on".
The dicsosmile was something developed for large sound systems where mid range doesn't carry as well, especially prodominant on club systems in the 70/80's where they had big subs and then tweeter clusters - The sub travelled well due to it's nature of physics and the hi's were a real factor in that music so a lot of emphahsis was put on those bands.
| quote: | Originally posted by kosmotika
Is there a way to completely erase muddiness without making my track sound like it's playing through a tin can? I've spent a lot of time messing around and I can't seem to get things just right.
Also, thanks for the reminder about the cheaper headphones, I have several cheap pairs of earbuds I should really test my songs out on before mixing down. I've been forgetting to do that. |
That 90's sound you love was not made by removing all the mid - just load up one of your favourite tracks and check the frequency spread. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are doing way too much subtractive EQ - a dead sound is often the result of just stripping too much away. You're essentially EQing the life out of it. Look in to balancing what sounds you're using so they don't compete so much in the first place (and that way you don't have to EQ the out of the to get rid of the mud) and then give certain sounds a little bit of life by accenting (positive EQ) the parts that sound good (simblance on vocals, 2k on guitars, 800 on low plucks etc). |
|
|
| kosmotika |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
Well this was the period (1995 to 2001) that I was DJ'ing the most in and when I started producing so I'm most familiar with this.
One thing I think you're missing is that it's not really about EQ curves or the discosmile...it was about who and how the music was made.
You have to realise that in that period, it took a serious investment, both in terms of talent, time and money to make even a simple track - there really wasn't such a thing as kids sitting in their basement with cracked DAW's and plugins churning out music they are randomly painting the notes in.
That music, essentially being a new medium (and certainly not really in the mainstream commercial domain like it is now), was this thing done by real musicians who were dabbling in this cool new dance music stuff.
That meant people who were trained on instruments, then had to buy at least $10,000 worth of kit to have a chance at making something that you could release, and even then, if you were able to make a track, you were going to have to pony up at least another $1000 just to get the minimum 500 vinyls pressed.
These were by all accounts, quality filters - only really dumb or rich (usually both) people put out bad records then because of the associated time effort and cost.
however, because there were real musicians, with real musical knowledge making dance music, what it may have lacked in production, it made up for in melody, composition and arrangement.
Also, a lot of tracks were professionally engineered as well - just because you could write a track didn't mean you could engineer it.
Tons of those guys (Jose Amnesia, Sasha, Vincent De Moor, Robert Miles, Signum, Oakenfold, Tall Paul, Jam & Spoon etc etc etc) all relied on engineers for their tracks.
Again, another filter is in place when you're paying for studio time and/or an engineers wages. I remember chatting to Luis Paris and he was getting nervous about the delays in making a couple of track to finish an album - the problem was that his engineer was going to work on another project soon and he did not want to work without him.
You have to realise at that time there were literally only one or two really nerdy guys who could do all themselves (guys like BT and orbital etc).
It took literally days to make a track, including using hardware samplers and midi sequencers and real instances of each an every synth you were going to use.Then you have to record the output of all of this to a multitrack medium and then mix that, then have it professionally mastered. Then after that a label would have to market and distribute it and actually pay you if it sold.
All a massive chain of quality control, which simply doesn't exist today.
You'd really have to work at it to make a track and that why so many of those tracks were so incredible (aside from the renaissance effect as I call where you have a group of talented people all feeding off each other's work which exponentially raises the bar both individually and collectively).
There was an interview recently with someone on ASOT (strangely enough) - I can't remember who it was but it was someone quite oldschool like JOOF or Chicane who was asked how EDM has changed over the years and why that period is considered golden. He said it was because "as a producer, you put out maybe a few tracks a year and they were a labor or love that you spent a lot, probably too much, time on".
The dicsosmile was something developed for large sound systems where mid range doesn't carry as well, especially prodominant on club systems in the 70/80's where they had big subs and then tweeter clusters - The sub travelled well due to it's nature of physics and the hi's were a real factor in that music so a lot of emphahsis was put on those bands.
That 90's sound you love was not made by removing all the mid - just load up one of your favourite tracks and check the frequency spread. I have a sneaking suspicion that you are doing way too much subtractive EQ - a dead sound is often the result of just stripping too much away. You're essentially EQing the life out of it. Look in to balancing what sounds you're using so they don't compete so much in the first place (and that way you don't have to EQ the out of the to get rid of the mud) and then give certain sounds a little bit of life by accenting (positive EQ) the parts that sound good (simblance on vocals, 2k on guitars, 800 on low plucks etc). |
Wow man, awesome read!! Learned a lot from that! I did notice a lot of my favorite projects, such as Jet Set, only released one EP per year, maybe a couple singles and rarely, if ever, an album, so that's the explanation for that. I thought it may have been due to a lack of creativity, but I suppose it was because so much time was invested. I guess it really gets me thinking about how I have something new lined up every week almost with literally hundreds of projects on the back burner.
I'll definitely work on finding the "sweet spot" for EQs if possible. Any more tips on that would be much appreciated. |
|
|
| scorpradio |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ RANN
You have to realise at that time there were literally only one or two really nerdy guys who could do all themselves (guys like BT and orbital etc). |
zomg Rann...I was reading up to this part in total anticipation and hope that you would mention Orbital. THANK YOU!
::also throws shameless plugin for kraftwerk:: |
|
|
|
|
