OK I have heard that a good place to boost the voice is around the 5k frequency...any tips on good frequencies for backups. guitar and base? Any help or opinions are greatly appreciated!
Thanks in advance.
Comments
ok, well here's some more "crap" guidelines,, But as Ammi says
ok, well here's some more "crap" guidelines,,
But as Ammi says, best to go with ears and not just what a setting is dialed in at,,
FREQUENCY:
USES:
50Hz
1. Increase to add more fullness to lowest frequency instruments like foot, toms, and the bass.
2. Reduce to decrease the "boom" of the bass and will increase overtones and the recognition of bass line in the mix. This is most often used on loud bass lines like rock.
100Hz
1. Increase to add a harder bass sound to lowest frequency instruments.
2. Increase to add fullness to guitars, snare.
3. Increase to add warmth to piano and horns.
4. Reduce to remove boom on guitars & increase clarity.
200Hz
1. Increase to add fullness to vocals.
2. Increase to add fullness to snare and guitar ( harder sound ).
3. Reduce to decrease muddiness of vocals or mid-range instruments.
4. Reduce to decrease gong sound of cymbals.
400Hz
1. Increase to add clarity to bass lines especially when speakers are at low volume.
2. Reduce to decrease "cardboard" sound of lower drums (foot and toms).
3. Reduce to decrease ambiance on cymbals.
800Hz
1. Increase for clarity and "punch" of bass.
2. Reduce to remove "cheap" sound of guitars.
1.5KHz
1. Increase for "clarity" and "pluck" of bass.
2. Reduce to remove dullness of guitars.
3KHz
1. Increase for more "pluck" of bass.
2. Increase for more attack of electric / acoustic guitar.
3. Increase for more attack on low piano parts.
4. Increase for more clarity / hardness on voice.
5. Reduce to increase breathy, soft sound on background vocals.
6. Reduce to disguise out-of-tune vocals / guitars.
5KHz
1. Increase for vocal presence.
2. Increase low frequency drum attack ( foot / toms).
3. Increase for more "finger sound" on bass.
4. Increase attack of piano, acoustic guitar and brightness on guitars (especially rock guitars).
5. Reduce to make background parts more distant.
6. Reduce to soften "thin" guitar.
7KHz
1. Increase to add attack on low frequency drums ( more metallic sound ).
2. Increase to add attack to percussion instruments.
3. Increase on dull singer.
4. Increase for more "finger sound" on acoustic bass.
5. Reduce to decrease "s" sound on singers.
6. Increase to add sharpness to synthesizers, rock guitars, acoustic guitar and piano.
10KHz
1. Increase to brighten vocals.
2. Increase for "light brightness" in acoustic guitar and piano.
3. Increase for hardness on cymbals.
4. Reduce to decrease "s" sound on singers.
15KHz
1. Increase to brighten vocals (breath sound).
2. Increase to brighten cymbals, string instruments and flutes.
3. Increase to make sampled synthesizer sound more real.
Thanks for the reply. I know that the for the most part you nee
Thanks for the reply. I know that the for the most part you need to use you ears but it is also nice to have a refference point to start with. With everything in this business you need to use your ears but there are some simple "guidelines" that still hold true.
Thanks again and happing recording!!! 8-)
All these guidlines would be great if everyone recording exactly
All these guidlines would be great if everyone recording exactly the same way, but they don't. There is absolutly no general rule for any instrument. You have to use your ears and you have to learn by trial and error. Everyone does things differently to achieve the results they desire.
Ed Littman wrote: [quote=Ammitsboel]What a bunch of crap! Sorry,
Ed Littman wrote: [quote=Ammitsboel]What a bunch of crap!
Sorry, but that's the truth IMO.
Maybe they based their chart on this historic Carnegie Hall Musical Instrument Frequency Range Chart on Bob Katz's site.
scroll down
(Dead Link Removed)
Ed
He he Ed... :lol:
Ammitsboel wrote: [quote=splurge]Grab a CD, play it through an E
Ammitsboel wrote: [quote=splurge]Grab a CD, play it through an EQ, boost different frequency ranges and see what jumps out. If you do this lots then you can make your own chart. :)
Is this what you have done...? If so, what did you archieve by using this technique?
When I first started to learn about sound engineering this was suggested to me by a tutor. I found it more useful than looking at charts.
Cheers
Liam
IMO I think everything could be useful for starters, what's wron
IMO I think everything could be useful for starters, what's wrong with it (chart)? Of course that does not implies everything about ranges, harmonics, subs ...there are also great litteratures that deals with these subjects. I doubt that there are a lot of people that they know about harmonics and harmonic intervals. Is it useful? I think it is. Is it mandatory ? I guess not. Is it crap ? Why would it be ? I think there are more subtleties than Black or White, right or wrong.
If you are curious and interested about theory, go for it. We all know that you have to "listen" and trust / train your ears but it is not always all black or all white.
Richard
When I first started doing sound, EQ was the hardest part of the
When I first started doing sound, EQ was the hardest part of the job. It is so easy to mess something up by adding a little boost here of there to get a good sound. What I ended up doing is masking something that was already good with the boost. So try the other approach, attenuate. Take out what is bad and give yourself more headroom. Makes perfect sense. I still had no idea what I was doing, I was just playing with things until it sounded better. With experiance and the use of charts and listening exercises (Golden Ears) I finally began to get a handle on what 250 Hz really sounds likes, or 3K or whatever frequency. The point is I finally had a knowledge of what it truly did, not only to that track, but to the entire mix. Mixing and recording is an art just like playing or writing the music. It takes practice, patience, and more of both. The more you do, the better you get. However, all these exercises were guidelines. I had to make the choice of what sounded best. The charts were great to get me familiar with the range of the instruments and how to arrange them in a mix, but it took doing several mixes until I learned how to really place them in there spot in the mix. The final answer is your ears, however, ears have to be trained just like fingers on a piano, or breath control on a wind instrument. Use whatever it takes to get that accomplished.
Rory Baker
Clearwater Studios
Norman, OK
yepp, totally agree on the last post. my adwise, don't use char
yepp, totally agree on the last post.
my adwise, don't use charts at all, train your ears instead.
a chart will most probably "program" something into your head which is way out of reality, every recording is different, and each instrument can be tuned different, etc.... etc....
even after long experience, sometimes you still have to "sweep" trough a diffcult or very complex recording to find the right "spot"
just train your ears, to do what sounds right!!
a.
Well, for me charts could be useful just like anything else. It
Well, for me charts could be useful just like anything else. It is like saying "don't learn grammar, just learn to speak and read by the sound" :? . Could probably get good result without it but certainly, grammar (some theory) can't do damage !! Why everything has to be all Black or White without any nuances ??
Richard
How about this, close your eyes and turn some knobs. theory and
How about this, close your eyes and turn some knobs. theory and practice sometimes come together and sometimes don't.
I just spent an hour consulting with a producer who decided to mix his wifes stuff. this is the 3rd session and he's improved 100%. Once he stopped looking at the knobs and started using his ears, his problems started going away. It took a few weeks for him to unlearn all the crap he read on the internet and told by weekend tweekers. If you start trying to mix by formula, you are in big trouble.
Are we talking Mix EQ or Mastering EQ here? ... there is a big d
Are we talking Mix EQ or Mastering EQ here? ... there is a big difference. The frequency chart you posted is OK, and only OK for a general starting guide, but there are some suggestions on the chart that I would never use... like adding 3k to bring up bass attack... what if in the mix you are EQing, the guitars and vocals are already plenty bright at 3k... you certainly wouldn't add more, another example adding 50Hz... maybe the kick drum is centered at 63 Hz instead, 50Hz might only emphasize the low "G" on the Fender Bass that's already a little big!
Mastering Engineers spend years crafting their EQing abilities, and the good ones never quit evolving. MEs can talk for days, and write volumes about EQing. But like Fosse says, there are no hard and fast rules. It depends on the music and the EAR, not some chart.
First of all you need good, somewhat flat monitors, or headphones. Use a good sweepable EQ, analog or digital, adjust the Q somewhat tight, add a few dB and Slowly sweep through a mix, then cut a few dB and sweep again, make some notes on your observations. Then try the same on some different types of music, different producers, etc. Watching a good analyzer can help.
In Mastering a mix, first, often I look for problem areas to Cut, then Boost in ranges that need a little help to make the mix come alive! How all this interacts with the compressor is another big factor.
That's all the "Trade Secrets" I'm giving up today! Do like the rest of us ME's did, figure it out for youself... maybe you'll find an approach that "bends" ears like no one else.
Also, just because it makes the instrument sound good alone does
Also, just because it makes the instrument sound good alone doesn't mean it makes the mix sound good. For example, according to Paul Carusso (engineer for Joe Perry's new album), the bass guitar track had to be eq'd in such a way that you can really only hear it from the subs most of the time. You can't even identify the notes being played by it real well. However, when you add it to the mix, it sounds great there. Don't try to "mix" instruments by themselves, MIX them.
just browsing old posts There is actually a really good live so
just browsing old posts
There is actually a really good live sound book that I use to refer to. I think it's Live Sound Reinforcement. Has anyone heard of this or know the author? It had a pretty detailed chart near the back about where to increase/decrease frequencies for certain instruments. It helped me out alot. It also helped me a lot with gain structure when I started to record tracks. Personally, I think if you have something to guide you and a good set of ears, you'll learn relatively fast where to boost/cut freq. I know this is an old post but I thought that book might be helpful to someone.
Re: just browsing old posts daveseviltwin wrote: There is actua
Re: just browsing old posts
daveseviltwin wrote: There is actually a really good live sound book that I use to refer to. I think it's Live Sound Reinforcement. Has anyone heard of this or know the author? It had a pretty detailed chart near the back about where to increase/decrease frequencies for certain instruments. It helped me out alot. It also helped me a lot with gain structure when I started to record tracks. Personally, I think if you have something to guide you and a good set of ears, you'll learn relatively fast where to boost/cut freq. I know this is an old post but I thought that book might be helpful to someone.
Isn't it Scott Hunter Stark ?
Its good to see old posts get bumped back up. True, I learned b
Its good to see old posts get bumped back up.
True, I learned basics of where instruments typically reside in the spectrum from charts. However, you can't look at a chart as being a rule. Just because the chart says "bass guitar occupies xxx - xxx" doesn't mean that to give the bass guitar its space that you need to add some room here by taking away elsewhere, but rather it means that this area is where its fundamentals reside. One must always remember that mixing is just that — mixing.
i dont understand that chart. acoustic guitar is definitely not
i dont understand that chart. acoustic guitar is definitely not 80-880. not to mention its solid lines. regardless of notes theres always freq ranges that are emphasized and not.
acoustic guitar usually has some beef aroudn 100s to 200 some. it has a lot of action in the 5k area and up. theres sometimes something going on in the mids around 800. a lot depends on who makes it (taylor vs martin has a HUGE difference in the mid and mid highs, and martins seem more full in the lowers).
electlric guitar is mostly in the highs, around 2k to 5k, and it falls off above 5k. has a lot in the mud areas too, which is why i usually lower the 250-300 area down a little and boost the 100s up slightly, then roll off below 80. also bump a few dB from 2k to 4k. i should know where electric lies, after listening to my own guitar through headphones for a year and getting tinnitus and sensitivity to those frequencies (2.7khz, 2.5khz, 3.3khz, so on). *funny fact, ive got 2 tones in my left ear and one in my right, and combined they make F minor*
as for bass guitar, it usually lies in multiple areas that define tone. sub which would be 30-80 or so, the solid part of iti s in the early 100s, the more beef of it goes into the 200s, then the rest is warmth, then for slap and punk tones it goes into the 2k to 5k, sometimes going into extreme highs for a very bright sound (4k up to 8k). bass is very versitile in its frequency range. its hard to generalize its frequency range because on one album it might lie in 100-200 with a little beyond that, and in another song it might lie 50-150 and 4k-6k.
right. most music nowdays dismisses 500hz though, in favor of a
right. most music nowdays dismisses 500hz though, in favor of a scooped sound (bleh). i usually leave 500 alone since it only muds the mix up if i boost it (male vocals also lie in 500-1k range), and 2k-5k usually brings the guitar out enough to stand out. this being only at most 2dB gain so 500 range is usually standing out pretty well without any modification.
All I'm saying... I thought the list in the book I suggested wo
All I'm saying...
I thought the list in the book I suggested would give an untrained ear a guideline to go by. If you want to be technical about it, anything between 20hz and 20khz is fair game. That's a lot wider than an untrained ear thinks. Regarding what you were saying Rider, it really depends on what you're dealing with. Are you recording Korn or Dave Matthews? I mean, I've brought mud out in the 800 range on Metal guitars. Guitar EQ is very subjective in my opinion. Also, acoustic guitars can be very tricky depending on cost, style, wood etc. It's all just relative but if you're sitting there with your mix trying to boost 15k on your bass tracks, you'll have problems. Everyone has to admit that they have fooled around with EQ and been surprised at times but there once you know where to look and listen it becomes a bit easier. Understanding the timbre of the products and musicians you're dealing with is also very important. Most of you guys are much more experienced than I am but I still have the right to opinion, that's why I really dig this forum. It's a beautiful when you're working with another engineer and you can argue for ours over where to place a mic or boost/cut and when you find the right spot you both look at each other and know you hit the wrong button or turned the wrong switch. I just like to hear a little style in my mix, that's all.
Rider wrote: as for bass guitar, it usually lies in multiple are
Rider wrote: as for bass guitar, it usually lies in multiple areas that define tone. sub which would be 30-80 or so, the solid part of iti s in the early 100s, the more beef of it goes into the 200s, then the rest is warmth, then for slap and punk tones it goes into the 2k to 5k, sometimes going into extreme highs for a very bright sound (4k up to 8k). bass is very versitile in its frequency range. its hard to generalize its frequency range because on one album it might lie in 100-200 with a little beyond that, and in another song it might lie 50-150 and 4k-6k.
hmm, show me where exactly i said 15k for bass? its there sometimes (very minor but can be there). usually when i hear a bright bass it is in the 2k and 3k area, but ive heard some very scooped bass sounds (mostly metal type) that go up into some pretty high areas (as i said about the 8k, which im just guessing since i havent listened to that type of bass in a while). mudvayne's bass has always seemed to come out around 4k to 6k area.
im pretty sure somewhere in my post i said something about frequencies not being absolute, or something to that effect. as for guitars, i didnt expand enough on the mids. in distortion it almost always lies in 2k-5k heavily, but from my experience a lot of character lies in the mids (which is main reason i stated i hardly ever scoop any in the mids).
really, you stated everything i said anyway.
great, now im stuck listening to mudvayne. just as i was getting into offspring.
you misunderstood me I wasn't talking about you tweaking at 15k
you misunderstood me
I wasn't talking about you tweaking at 15k, rider. I was referring to an amateur ear in general. The original poster was looking for some guidance and I suggested a guideline. My whole point was that you posted the frequencies that you liked for what you do. All I was trying to say is that is very subjective. Sorry for not being clear in what I was saying.
yeah sorry man, it was just a general statement. Nothing inte
yeah
sorry man, it was just a general statement. Nothing intended toward you. I would never tell anyone that they're doing anything wrong because I would be wrong. It's an Art, man. No one is right or wrong, it's all opinion. I just happen to have a lot of opinions.
I think I'll chime in here just to see if anyone agrees with me.
I think I'll chime in here just to see if anyone agrees with me.
I hate charts. Why? They teach you to mix VISUALLY. When one gets a chart what do they do? They open up there favorite EQ plug and look for that frequency and boost/cut where the charts says to and by how much and they get into a rut. Now, whenever they have a similar track, they are going to fall right into that comfort zone of that chart again. Rather than people learn by charts I would like to see more of a progressive approach...maybe instead of freq's charts that try to be a universal, generic guideline we should have more sites that offer guidelines as to how to go about FINDING the fundmantals and harmonics...not some chart ASSUMING that it knows and applies to the track you are mixing. Think about this...if you deal in hard rock mostly like I do and you are mixing guitars...one band might tune to standard E...my band tunes to drop B...big difference there in where you are gonna find the fundamentals and harmonic freq's. If you boost 200hz on a standard tuned guitar you might add some fullness but more often than not 200hz on a dropped B guitar is gonna add mud. You would need to boost around the 150 range to get fullness...so its all relative and I think we can all agree on that. It would just be nice if newbies didn't have to go from charts or if so many sites weren't advocating these charts and instead were pushing a real education and process to finding key elements of certain instruments and tracks. What do you all think?
in a perfect world yes In a perfect world yes. When I started
in a perfect world yes
In a perfect world yes. When I started out I had no idea what I was adjusting and I didn't have any idea what to look back on when I found something that sounded good. I had to learn on an oscilloscope. I also had a few charts to give me an idea of where my freq's are. I do understand what you're saying. I usually tune in dropped C, so Iknow that you have to be creative. My point is that someone that has absolutely no where to look needs something to go by. Some people maybe like yourself can pick up on things without needing guidance but others might need some direction. The book I suggested doesn't tell you that all frequencies are in a certain area for a certain instrument but it does give you a "GENERAL" idea of where everything can be found. It also tells you that there are no rules and that you should be able to use your ear and experiment with different things.
It wasn't so much of a knock of using charts...it was more meant
It wasn't so much of a knock of using charts...it was more meant to be a post advocating the "why" and the "how" INSTEAD OF the "what" and the "where". I think that is the biggest point I was trying to make. Anyone can say boost/cut 350hz (the where) on bass guitar to do this...(the what) I just think it would be more beneficial for these sites to have a process. Like...
1. Identify the instrument you are tracking, mixing, editing, etc....
2. How is it tuned?
3. What is the instrument lacking in your opinion?
4. What part of the instrument track sounds like crap?
5. How would like the instrument to sound?
6. Does your vision fit into the context of the mix itself?
The idea would be to first nail down these key questions and then take it from there. Next could be something like...
7. Identifying the fundamental frequency (and the chart or site could explain how)
8. Finding harmonic frequencies
9. Find the frequencies that relate to questions 3,4
10. Listen to references in relation to question 5
11. NOW play with your EQ based on the study you just did for that instrument.
Things like this, although time consuming, I think would be much more beneficial to beginners. It teaches them to locate the freq's on their own and to HEAR what boosting/cutting 250hz sounds like instead of READING that it makes a guitar sound this way or that way and what not. I hope everyone understands what I am trying to say. I tried to make it brief. I don't feel like typing today. haha
RAIN0707 wrote: Rather than people learn by charts I would like
RAIN0707 wrote: Rather than people learn by charts I would like to see more of a progressive approach...maybe instead of freq's charts that try to be a universal, generic guideline we should have more sites that offer guidelines as to how to go about FINDING the fundmantals and harmonics...
general guideline:
set a parametric at 1.0 Q, sweep it through the track, take notes on what base frequencies do what. might set the Q tighter below 400 as bass is way more sensative than the higher end. get a LOT of variety (different amp settings, different amps, whatever) and just keep experimenting.
thats the only way i learned whats what on frequencies. charts never did anything. the only advise i ever got anything out of was 'general frequency' guide on soundonsound.com, which was a very basic guideline and i tested it against what i had and experimented some more.
Yeah Rider, that's kind of what I was getting at. More focus on
Yeah Rider, that's kind of what I was getting at. More focus on HOW people find what they are looking for frequency wise in a track. I think it's safe to say anyone in the recording profession has been listening to music for years upon years. I think this alone gives them the ability to know when something sounds like crap. It's just identifying that negative aspect of a track that becomes hard when they need to take it from words (this sounds harsh, tubby, muddy, bright, warm, etc...) and translate it into numbers (200hz, 5khz, etc...) Identifying the problem is half the battle. It will take research for them to learn how to go about fixing it and I think that is what needs to be pushed more. It's more about the ear that way and less about the eyes in my opinion. I know, I know...in a perfect world...
Here ya go i was actually trying to find another chart
Here ya go
i was actually trying to find another chart but this layout is pretty good ,,
http://www.har-bal.com/frequency.php
SI