EQing the Lower and Upper mids (Producers Please)

This one is really a tough call, Philip. The reason being, the instrument prints/captures are never the same. Some sounds may have mids accentuated that literally make the sound what it is and you don't want to curb that, so you have to be careful.

One thing that I have always done when working with kick and bass guitar is, I like to map out my sounds before I record. If the song in my head should have more of a "Boom" type kick drum, then I know that the bass guitar I use will have less low end in it. If I'd rather more of a snappy kick with a bit more beater in it, I know I can have more low end in my bass guitar. If keys/strings etc will be in the mix, I decide if they will be dominant or filler type keys. If they will be dominant, I can get away with more mids in them...if they will be fillers, I know the mids and low end will need to be curbed if rockin' guitars will be in the mix.

It's tough to just say "well, I cut this and this in order to allow this to be heard more" because unless you are using the exact same instruments for every print, there's no way to determine what to cut or boost. It depends on the instruments you printed as well as what you expect out of your mix. For example...

In one tune, you may want your bass guitar to have a bit more 80 hz than it would normally have. You may want to add a bit of bass guitar clack at 2k or 2.5k...it depends on the sound. You may need to cut out 300hz...you just never know until the sound is in place. But if this were the case, it tells you what you'll need to do to your kick drum because you can't have that same boost or they will mask each other. So we may have to add some low end at 50-60 hz for the kick to have some low end meat and add a little 6-8k for some beater clack/presence....but again, unless we can hear what the kick drum is doing, all these numbers are just numbers.

In order for back up vocals to shine through a mix, you want to thin them out a bit from like 600hz to 800hz. This removes some of the thickness, but it also removes the blanket that could stop these from being masked within the lead vocals. But again, it depends on the mic used, how many back up vocals, what the timbre of the voice is, how much natural low end comes from the voice, is it a female vocal to where it may be lacking a bit of low end and it sounds a bit thin? These are all the things to consider, but again, meaningless unless we are listening to the sound that is being tweaked.

You like boomy, cannon sounding toms, for the right impact, you make them have the most low end in the mix and thin out the bass guitar and the kick drum. You'll also have to decide where you want the low end in the toms to be. This will dictate the decisions you make on the bass and kick. But the other side of the coin here is, the toms will not be sounding throughout the entire song, so you have to find a happy medium to where they have impact when they hit, have the low end that you need, but aren't adding this "whoommmfff' of low end that crushes the mix when they DO appear. They can also easily be masked by a bass guitar or a kick drum to where you have less impact...so you have to be careful.

For someone to come on here and say "Well, you need to high pass this and this, and remove mids here and curb highs here" would be pretty much a waste in my opinion. You just can't make that call without hearing the instruments in question. Sometimes, the instrument sounds themselves accentuate things that most people take away by default. By doing this and living by "eq templates" or however they may be set in their ways, they are depriving the instrument of "its natural sound" which is what we want at all times. Something shouldn't have to be so curbed that you no longer like what it sounds like. However, you do have to fit it in the mix and sometimes this can be challenging.

Another example. If we have a kickin' tune with a beater present kick drum and we have a nice low "ooom" sounding bass, what do you do with the killer string pad you just added that has left hand bass notes? You have 2 choices. You remove the left hand bass notes because they are not really needed with a bass guitar that has the nice lows we need already, or you high pass the heck out of the string patch until the low notes are not walking on anything. Or, you curb the lows in the bass guitar, give it a bit more "clack" and allow the string patch lows to be the emphasis of your low end.

But again, and I stress this, it depends on the instrument print as well as what frequencies you decide to push before we can even make a decision on what to cut or boost. We can all give you starting points as to what we remove, but this isn't the same for every project and it sholdn't ever be the same unless you are working on an album where the same instruments appear. Even there, sometimes what you use on 5 songs may not work on 3 additional songs on the same album. This is also due to what keys the songs are in. If we have a bass guitar playing one of those low B strings, you'll need to set up a different eq for that or you may need to automate for each time that low B shows itself in the mix. 8 out of 10 times, that low B is going to leap out and say "I AM A BASS PLAYING A LOW B NOTE, HEAR ME ROAR BABY!" :)

So keep in mind that there are lots of things that need to be considered when doing this stuff. If you compiled the info from 10 guys on here that gave you the techniques they use for this, I would bet that only a small fraction of their info would apply to you based on their instrument sounds vs. the ones you are coming up with.

The more you do this stuff and learn how to deal with eq as well as what to expect out of it, the better you get at making the right decisions. Another thing to keep in mind is, there are certain frequencies that are not needed in some instruments. Removing them completely actually cleans up the instrument. Do this on all your tracks and the mix suddenly sounds like a million bucks because it doesn't have the garbage in it any longer.

Let's look at a few instruments.

Kick drums: These are difficult to handle at times because you can literally tweak frequencies successfully from 40hz up to about 6-7 k But after 7k (which some might think is too high to work, however you can get a bit of air in your beater in that area) you don't need anything there...so you could remove it all from 7k on up. 

Snares: Not much low end needs to be in a snare, but it depends on how thick you need it to be. Most times, you can remove 150 Hz on down because it's not needed in a snare.

Cymbals: Remove lows and selective low mids completely. Some times we want a little beef in a cymbal that may be thin, so you can add a slight bit of low mid to enhance this. Remove 16k on up if you can depending on how much sssss or "air" you want.

Toms: Depending on how many and what sizes, you don't need any high end after about 7-8 k in these. Remove *some* mids and low mids if you want them a bit more punchy for a less classic rock sound...more low mids and mids for more of warmer classic rock sound. Watch for sub lows. I like to remove anything under 90hz on these other than a floor tom that may need a bit of low end.

Guitars: Nothing under 80hz is needed in any guitar tone. Some people high pass from 100 hz on down...I've went as high as 200 hz on down. Again, it depends on the sound, the player, the guitar, the amp and how it was captured before I can determine this. 600-800 for warm mids, 2k-5k for highs...anything else higher, will give you "sizzle". Watch 300 for mud, and 400-500 for boxiness.

Bass guitar: Most bass guitar low end is heard from 75 hz to about 120 hz. I don't like sub lows in my bass guitar, so I'll remove all that stuff. Watch for the 300 hz range...this is what muds up a bass. You shouldn't need any high end frequencies after like 4k or so...most times, you won't hear high end going into a bass after 3k, but at 4k, you can get a bit of air in there. 5k on up, get rid of it totally. But again, this depends on the bass. Maybe you want a percussive type bass...if so, you may wan it a bit clacky or airy in the highs.

Piano: Treat it like a guitar on the low end. Depending on the sound, high pass until it sounds like the low end mask has been removed and it sounds like "tickled ivories" instead of piano with a low mid or low end bass mask. Mids and high end here depend on the sound of the piano. Most times though, curbing the mids at about 860hz will do wonders for a piano...but this depends on how much low mids it may have. Again, 300 can kill ya.

Strings: Watch low notes if there is a bass guitar in the mix. High pass until you don't hear the low end notes fighting with the bass guitar. Again, pinpointing where to cut depends on what we're faced with. We might be able to let a little 110 hz slide through here. It depends on the sound we're using. Cut mids if this will be filler instrument, if it's the dominant one, eq to taste, but watch the lows and low mids. Strings can easily engulf an entire mix and mask everything if you're not careful. Anything after 6k will be giving you air type high end. However, sometimes it's nice to back down 4k a bit and bring in some of the upper air freq's for texture. Again, yep, you guessed it, it depends on the sound.

So in all honestly, none of the above means a thing really because it will depend on what your vision will be for these instruments. The great thing about this field is the ability to experiment and go against the grain. As long as nothing is masking and everything is audible, you're right where you need to be. We can't just do something because we read that we are supposed to do it. We need to try it with the instruments we are using along with the vision we have for this particular mix. Some instruments just sound cool when we leave what would normally be "offending frequencies" in the mix. We then fix the others to accommodate. That's another method to use. Sometimes we hear this killer sound, but it may not work in the mix. You either make it work by tweaking it, or you tweak all the others to compliment it and find a happy medium. Just remember there are no rules really, just starting points and guidelines. Sorry I can't be more helpful here, but this is just a huge topic that has too many possibilities to give you correct answers on.

You're quite welcome, Philip. I'm just glad some of this stuff I share helps you out...and thank God I can type fast to post these huge scrolls. LOL!

One other thing real fast. Did you ever listen to a pro mix and not really like it? When this happens, chances are quite a few others will not like it either. I think you are a lot like me in what I can tell from your posts. You try to like something about every mix and try not to discard it as bad, am I right? That's a good way to be. The reason being, this allows artistic flair to be accepted in your world. I'm like that as well. I try my best to take something good from a mix or a style of music that I may not be down with. The reason being, that is the artist/producer's take on artistic creativity and if a majority of people do not like the mix or instruments chosen, he's probably gone against the grain and broken some rules. But to HIM, his instruments and the mix sounded good.

My point in saying that to you is, you may create a mix that you love that the majority may not like. That doesn't mean it's a bad mix. Even if people you hold credible respond that it's a bad mix or they may not like a particular instrument, it's still not a bad choice if you like what you hear. This going against the grain stuff as well as breaking the rules, is important my friend. It really is. It gives you a chance to say "well, guess what, I made this tune for ME based on MY vision, world!"

However, all of the above is perfectly acceptable...as long as you don't have any blatant issues, masking, or artifacts. To me, if a mix is audible and is pleasant to listen to without annoying high end, too much mid range congestion for the sake of "warmth" and sub low end booming all over (unless it's rap, hip hop or *some* R&B) it's a good mix. I don't like some of the instruments in some Beatles songs, but I love the Beatles and their tunes. Just some of those sounds didn't sit well with me. We can say this about any mix in creation really, but there comes a time to where we need to be less subjective and just say "is this good or isn't it" without someone mixing the tune in their own image. That totally ruins the vibe in my opinion, don't you think? I love when people can help you with problem areas and state the specifics when things are blatantly obvious to them, but to just give an opinion for the sake of "Well, I would have done this instead" just to me, doesn't really hold as much clout as it used to. I think how we listen to something is extremely important...and accepting something for what it is instead of what someone may want it to be, is of the utmost importance in my opinion.

So do your thing and enjoy it. Don't be afraid to experiment and don't be afraid to show the artist in you. At the end of the day, most people (unless your a signed artist releasing to the world) will listen to your tunes 5 times more or less and they may never revisit the tune again. You on the other hand as the creator, will have to live with it forever...so you make sure you please yourself first and foremost. :)

jamescollins


Danny, you are the internet's most outrageously long poster! Unlike the others though, your posts are always worth reading!

Keep it up, you rule.

Uggh, I know James. Trust me, the long novel posts bother me so bad. I wish I could be less wordy, but can't seem to cut things down when I go into teacher mode. LOL! I guess I'd rather be long and informative over being short, sweet and making someone I reply to have additional questions. I thank you for the kind words though and I'm glad you enjoy my posts. :) I figure those that are really into this stuff will get a good read out of it and those that aren't, will just call me a wordy baystid and move on. :) Thanks again.

HONESTLY, i find that the interaction between different tracks, is always more critical than any single track having eq issues.


in fact, i track flat, with no eq.

and hopefully, very little is needed at mixdown.



can you HEAR what you are tracking accurately, while your are tracking?

in other words, are you able to hear that the bass is wrong, or the midrange too strong, or the mic position needs to be changed, or that the source, is just flat out wrong/right?

if you can't, then you need to ignore all these EQ parameters, and start focusing on getting it right at the microphone first.

the quality of the source, is key.
and then the capture.

and then,
 the EQ.

hi philip. 

the style of music, really is not important.

what is important, is the development of 'listening'.

so, if what is coming out of your (whatever) and going into your mic, sounds exactly the way you want it to play back, the key is in the capture.

i've never emulated the band YES, on any level.
if it sounds like YES, it's strictly by accident. 

and i do not write classic rock.

i write modern today right now rock. at least in my mind.

so there are crossover points, where certain things take on qualities that are derivitive of classic recordings....

study these classics for sonics, then move on to more modern sounds, the study of the EQ of classics are a great learning ground.

me, i currently use many modern recordings as the touchstones for my eq efforts...

CosmoSquad, A Perfect Circle,  Guano Apes, Joe Satriani, foo fighters, as well as some older fusion stuff: Brand X, Todd Rundgren, UK, Holdsworth..
that's more where i've actually coming from.

actually, in closing, i guess what i'm trying to say is, i'm trying to forge my own mixing style.
but starting with classic mixes, is a great way to get rolling.

being a singer/songwriter that uses guitars to write with, i can hardly get away from the 'classic' cubbyhole!

A lot of excellent understanding here, per Danny.  For the record, I think we can all concur Bats' music is awesome ... as a 'performer', too; I'd never hope to compare to his seasoned savy. 

Yet, as a fanatical hacker-composer, I think I can somewhat approach his traditional excellence, in some of his vibe areas.

Back to reality.  I think my mixing issues are obviously per Danny's observations and possibly a 3rd.  I feel like every mix is a 'child' that grows into *new* versions (like good wine -- ha ha!)

I'll comment more later (at work); and will research the ARC plugin ASAP.
 
EDIT: June 13, 11
 
I bought the arc plugin (crossgrade) and will bump this after tests.

Danny, in regards to a track taking 4-8 hours to mix, does this include comping time? I find this is the big killer for me, time wise... Gosh, I'll spend 3-4 hours just comping vocals/harmonies alone, at LEAST! It's not that the singing was so shocking, just that when you have 10-15 takes of a chorus, it gets hard to comp that perfect 'performance'!!! Which take do I chooose?!?!?! I am typically a VERY heavy comper, and am happy to cut/mix/match word for word if it gets me a better result. I understand other people like to keep it one take only (ie best take), if possible, but not me, cause I'm a perfectionist!!! Or do you consider comping part of the tracking stage? Which I guess it kinda is, but I think of it more as a stage on it's own: Tracking - Comping/editing - Mixing - Mastering.

I think Danny is trying to say: (not trying to put words into your mouth Danny)

Learn the frequency response of the instruments. And use your ears.

To elaborate a bit further: I have learned that I can set up my EQ in one song for piano, guitar, vocals, whatever..... and save it as a preset. And to me, it sounds really good.

BUT, I can record the very next project and pop that same, sweet, perfected EQ into the same vocal tracks and it sounds completely different. I ALWAYS need to tweeze something in it. Always.

Every song, and every track will sound similar but with enough of a difference that "one size does NOT fit all".

That is why it is so important to learn the frequencies involved, and understand and learn what you need to do to tame those frequencies and understand this at the most basic and fundamental levels as well as into the details as well.

This applies to every aspect of tracking and mixing to get a finished product that has the tracks co-existing peacefully and not stepping all over each other and hiding the details in the tone and timbre of the instruments involved.

As time goes on, and this knowledge becomes part of you, it is then second nature to listen to a track and say "I need to cut the 300hz band by 2 or 3 db and boost the 5k band by 2db..... " to achieve what you want.  I don't think in this manner... in reference to dbs and such, I work by ear. I listen and think the track is a bit hollow or boxy sounding or lacks oooomph or sizzle, and I know, with my gear and software, what to do to get that issue resolved. I spent quite some time playing with the gear experimenting and recording, and posting to get feedback from others to get to this point. I also know that I still have much to learn and that will take time doing more of the same thing.... time in the studio.

one caveat to eq charts and eq advice:


IF...... you mix in an untreated room, and have overlapping standing waves....

you will NEVER figure the eq balance out in a mix.

at best, you can guess and make adjustments, and learn what the outcome sounds like when you find a scheme that seems to translate everywhere, and get used to that sound while mixing.

Apparently my term mix is a misnomer.  Mix, for me, includes composing to printing in my mixes.  Especially since I'm a sample-driven composer that constantly seeks the eclectic (like Jeff Lynne).  While I do humble gigs regularly, I'm not a great public musician, I'm mostly a studio freak.

TBH, the reason it takes me 300 hours to mix a song-child is because I work as a painter: mixing includes, song-writing, sketching, composing, arranging, re-composing, re-arranging, etc. ... melodies, progressions, complex rhythms, etc. ... and making about 100 versions of one song.

So much ad-hoc stuff is rarely done in one day (for me); also, the subconscious has to stew and brew.  A song goes through many 'generations' when I mix.  Heck, it takes months at times to reconcile and create-mix a labor of love.

Danny Danzi

mattplaysguitar


Danny, in regards to a track taking 4-8 hours to mix, does this include comping time? I find this is the big killer for me, time wise... Gosh, I'll spend 3-4 hours just comping vocals/harmonies alone, at LEAST! It's not that the singing was so shocking, just that when you have 10-15 takes of a chorus, it gets hard to comp that perfect 'performance'!!! Which take do I chooose?!?!?! I am typically a VERY heavy comper, and am happy to cut/mix/match word for word if it gets me a better result. I understand other people like to keep it one take only (ie best take), if possible, but not me, cause I'm a perfectionist!!! Or do you consider comping part of the tracking stage? Which I guess it kinda is, but I think of it more as a stage on it's own: Tracking - Comping/editing - Mixing - Mastering.

Hi Matt,
 
It seems you and I share the same curse. LOL! The mixing was what I was talking about specifically. As far as tracking, yeah that can take me a long time but even there I'm starting to be a bit less anal about it because for some odd reason, I think that after 100 years of doing this, I'm actually getting much better first takes. LOL!
 
The vocal thing is always a nightmare though. I can't help it...I know it's over-done, I know it's not the in thing anymore, but I just love the Def Lep/Bon Jovi type back up vocals. It's my favorite part of tracking to be honest. I gotta have at least 30 back ups with whisper tracks going on for *some* things. Now my lead vocals, I'm not one that likes to color them too much or double track them. I have pretty good pitch, but that double vocal thing always reminds me of Ozzy and I just hate that sound so bad. I figure, if the sound of my voice isn't decent on its own, I should get someone else to sing. Most times, I sing the lead vocal like 5 times and cut and paste the best parts together. Sometimes I get lucky and have to only do 3 takes. Other times, when something just needs that special something, I do it line at a time/ But once the core is there, the chorus parts can be copied and pasted unless of course the lyrics change somewhere later in the tune...which I seem to be doing a lot of lately. LOL!
 
But yeah, vocals and back ups are the most time consuming for me. Oh yeah, and lead guitar too. Uggh! I think I hate that most of all. I did a tune on my last album that I just wanted perfect. By the time I was done, it was like 756 takes or something. LOL! The people that were here watching me do it said "dude, you need help...it doesn't sound any different than what you played on the first take...you lunatic!" Hahahaha! They don't hear what I hear though, ya know? I wanted every little part to have something special going on. It was so many takes because I'd punch in on a part that was like 5 seconds long...you know, sometimes you just want a different pick attack, or a different pinch harmonic sound...or you didn't hit the trem bar the right way...or you made a little string slide noise that just was annoying? You know what I mean I'm sure. LOL!
 
But the solo came out really good. The one thing about me that I think is also a downfall is, I won't record anything that I can't pull off live other than back up vocals and maybe a rhythm guitar. All my guys sing, but we don't sound like a wall of vox. Hahaha! But I force myself to learn everything I record..punch ins and all. If I can't do it live, it doesn't make it on the album. I try not to go too crazy with rhythm guitars these days. I was layering them like mad...but I seem to like the sound of just 2 now with maybe 2 more in a chorus section to bring it to the next level. But all that stuff is pretty easy thank God. It's the lead guitars and back up vocals that take the most time. You'd think I'd be happy to get to the solo sections...yet I can't stand writing/playing solos. I'd rather sing 9 trillion back up vocals. LMAO!! :)

I pretty much just read that and nodded in understanding the entire way through! I have nothing to add, sounds like that's pretty much exactly how I work too. Oh and I also like to copy paste the chorus if I can too! Saves lots of comping time!

Ah you're always welcome Philip. I really enjoy the conversations we have on here and look forward to seeing your posts and questions. As I said before, you seem to always ask about different stuff than most people and I really enjoy how deep we get with this stuff. I just wish there was a way for me to be less wordy in my responses to you. Unfortunately, though I hate when I post you a novel, I think the "novel form" posts create more of an atmosphere to further share the expericience in my opinion. :)

I'm just glad to see you so interested in this stuff and hope that these books I post up never bore you or lose you. If I ever do lose you (can't promise not to bore you lol) please never hesitate to ask me about something. If we have to go over it several times for it to get explained right, I have no problems sharing. Worst case scenario, I do a quick lil video and explain it that way if we're really having problems with something. :) As always, looking forward to your future work and possible questions on the forum here. :) I also hope that your ARC experience is a good one that not only helps you with your mixes, but cuts down the time it takes to get them where you want them. :)
 
-Danny

You're quite welcome, No How. :) Glad they are helpful...and thanks for reading.