High Cut & Low Cut On everything?

[twjewett]

Hi.

Just mixing my band on Logic Pro 7. Is it a good idea to put as much high cut and low cut filter on every track to take out the unwanted frequencies but not too much that it would alter the sound of the instrument? This seemed to make sense in my head as there would be less chance of different instruments clashing with each other in a certain frequency area making the mix a lot muddier.

 

Thanks, Thomas

[Larry Mal]

This is exactly correct, however, you'll have to be very careful about cutting high as you could run the danger of losing the harmonics that make every voice and instrument what it is. This doesn't mean you won't want to do that, at least to a degree, just that mixing is an art form that will take a lot of experience to master- and don't mistake my telling you that for claiming anything of the sort for myself.

 

Which brings me to this: I heard about this book on the Unicornation Digital Performer site, and it just came today. So far it looks very solid, I have only skimmed it so far. But it has an accompanying DVD filled with examples and such, and I think it'll improve my mixes. Here it is:

 

http://www.mixingaudio.com/

 

Also, although it is no substitute for your ears, you may not be aware that you can set the better EQ's in Logic to be spectral analysis tools, which I use to show me where the instruments are in the mix anyway- this won't help all that much with harmonics! But it does help me to see it, and I also use it on the main outs to see if I've gotten everything "bulging" in one area either in the panning or in the frequency range. I use Roger Nichols free Inspector for checking the panning, it'll somewhat show one how that is occurring. There is a much better, but expensive, pay version called Inspector XL that is sort of on my list.

 

Anyway, you can usually remove any unwanted bottom end from an instrument and clear things up that way to a degree- at least often get rid of some room tone if that is a problem for you. But be careful of the highs, anyway, hope this was helpful.

[ski]

Is it a good idea to put as much high cut and low cut filter on every track to take out the unwanted frequencies but not too much that it would alter the sound of the instrument?

 

Sure, it sounds good in theory but it's not a good idea in practice. The worst mix I ever heard was done by a guy who killed off everything above 15K on a pop record because he insisted that the bandwidth of FM radio didn't support frequencies higher than that (the mix was subsequently rejected by the record company too).

 

Use EQ for shaping tone, carving out frequencies (as Larry Mal described), and so on. Don't put EQ on a track that doesn't need it.

[twjewett]

So ski, would it be better to roll off bottom end of say a vocal with EQ or to use a low cut filter?

 

Thanks, Thomas

[jbk]

I have more experience live music myself, which is a different kettle of fish but alot of the methods can be applied to the studio.

A lot of the time it's more a case of the what instruments are in your mix and the type of music you're mixing.

I agree with the other posts that cutting too much on the end of the spectrum is not a good idea.

The bass end can take up a lot of headroom and can tend to muddy other areas of the mix. So this is generally a good place to start.

The really low stuff is where a lot of problems occur, so just start off by shaving off in the sub area.

Lets take vocals for example. You can usually start by cutting below at least 90 Hz and sometimes even higher . I've cut up to 250Hz before on a vocal where there just wasn't anything needed below that but that's on a particular voice and a particaular tune etc.

Guitars are another place you can look to start cutting at 90-100Hz.

The best thing is practice. Start by thinking of the instrument and how mush is really going on in certain places in the mix.

Another thing to be mindful of is boosting too much.

Some well placed cuts and a couple of boosts are often all thats needed.

Bassy synths especially in Logic can do with cuts in the frequencies below 70- 80Hz.

Anyway it's an art an all that but really it's more of a skill that can be learned. Practice.

[twjewett]

Thanks JBK. All this useful information will be taken into mind.

 

Thomas

[ski]

So ski, would it be better to roll off bottom end of say a vocal with EQ or to use a low cut filter?

 

Thanks, Thomas

 

What I'm saying is that you shouldn't use EQ if a sound doesn't need EQ'ing. Not everything does. Sometimes tracks actually get recorded properly the first time and don't need fixing. Other times a perfectly recorded track needs to have a bit of a frequency boost in one place (to make it cut more through the track) or a frequency notch (to make room for a more important sound in the same range). Other times you can leave the track alone.

 

What I think you're trying to do is apply some kind of theory about where in the frequency spectrum of any given sound the "meaningful" frequencies lie, and use EQ to carve out anything above/below that. But where the "meaningful" stuff lies might not be where you expect it to be.

 

Let's take a vocal track where the lowest note sung was a C3 (around 250 Hz approximately). Theoretically, you don't need any frequencies below 250 Hz because there's "no music" below that frequency, right? But try rolling off bottom end around 250 -- even where there's supposedly "no music", and your vocal will start to lose body and sound thin.

 

So let's say that you lower your rolloff to 100 Hz. That's a pretty safe place to do a low rolloff, because it's at least an octave below that C3. But you have to ask yourself why you're even bothering to do this. If there's "no music" below 100 Hz (to be sure) what's there to roll off?

 

Oh, there was some air conditioning rumble in the room on the day you recorded the vocal? OK, now there's a reason to roll off some low end. But if the vocal sounds full, clean, no problems, leave it alone.

[Larry Mal]

Ski is saying some things I wish I had thought of, there isn't much to add at this point. Check out a book or two and mix whatever you can get your hands on and you'll be fine. There is no difference between an EQ with the bass rolled off and a high pass filter, a high pass filter is just an EQ set to a fixed point (which can often be changed) and with a fast rolloff.

 

Good luck my friend, and I guess the only other advice I might have is to use good monitors and dampen the room you mix in to a degree, so you know what you're hearing.

More advice I don't follow at the moment.

[marcel72]

If there's nothing there, why would you EQ it?

 

And if there is something there, EQing it is going to change what it sounds like.

 

So... If it sounds right, it is. With the exception of very deep bass, there's nothing beyond what you hear.

[Ploki]

i put lo cut on many instruments just so they dont rumble and undefine the bass. but i usually know exactly what im doing and what type of sound im going for. if i need a good pronounced bass, sometimes i cut guitars @150hz. if i need chunky heavy sounds i let them go to 90hz.. never below 80. guiitars has no space there, if you arent doing anything for experimental reasons

[Ashermusic]

IMHO, when mixing there is no such thing as "always do this." Every mix is different and EQ should be used sparingly.

[fader8]

This seemed to make sense in my head as there would be less chance of different instruments clashing with each other in a certain frequency area making the mix a lot muddier.

 

Thomas,

You shouldn't EQ just so there's "less chance" of things muddying the mix. EQ filters shift the signal phase and add artifacts, even to the audio band you're not directly affecting with the EQ. The steeper the slopes and bigger the cuts or gains and the worse it gets. You get a few of these stacked up in the mix and it starts to become very audible.

 

As ski and marcel have pointed out, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. This isn't to say you shouldn't use EQ, just that you need to be smart about it. For example, I've seen mixers go back and EQ a tight peak into each cymbal because they wanted the drums brighter. Hey it sounds good with each one solo'd, but get them all running in the mix and you've got broken glass. A single stereo EQ on the cymbal submix with a gentle -6dB low shelf would probably get the job done better. And you won't cut yourself.

 

"Muddy" shouldn't always dictate "EQ". I was trained to always approach mix problems with dynamics first, then EQ as a last resort. That's worked out well for me, although it's not a hard fast rule. Piano is a great example as its low end is a frequent culprit of mudmaking, especially if the player uses a lot of pedal. Rather than EQ to drop the bottom out of the piano, use dynamics to enhance the attack and lower the level of the sustains. That gets rid of the mud and still lets you hear what's being played down there. It's not just about balancing energy at a given frequency, it's also about balancing when that energy occurs. EQs are temporally blind devices.

 

With all that said, I'll almost always put some kind of hi-pass or low shelf on electric guitars, but it usually gets bypassed or modified during a solo. EQs aren't a single purpose tool. Using them with radical settings to "re-design" an instrument sound is a different kettle of fish from using it subtly to alter a mix. Just don't confuse the two applications.

[dantheman65]

All good advice.

 

Try and determine what is muddying your tracks up and then altering that. It's prety much all been covered by hte posters before me but try and carve an EQ niche for each instrument if possible. eg. Theres not a whole lot of reason to have much below ~150/200hz for guitars - the bass is there to provide the bottom end. So you have the bass in that pocket and the ass dropped out of your guitars.

 

If you listen to solo'ed guitars in a studio they usually sound pretty thin but throw some bass underneath them and suddenly they shine.

 

I try to avoid using EQ where possible but the idea is to have each instrument try and sit within its own little spectrum if possible - thats how you get definition and reduce mud.

[camillo jr]

Let's take a vocal track where the lowest note sung was a C3 (around 250 Hz approximately). Theoretically, you don't need any frequencies below 250 Hz because there's "no music" below that frequency, right? But try rolling off bottom end around 250 -- even where there's supposedly "no music", and your vocal will start to lose body and sound thin.

 

Yes, theoretically! But what a lot of people don't realize is that harmonics go both ways, so there is definitely sound below the lowest note in a performance.

 

Over the last couple of years I've been adjusting my ears on the issue of using a low cut on stuff. I guess I was afraid of taking out too much of the warmth in things. But then I bought AirEQ and it forced me to use my ears more. I would use the AirEQ low cut and just roll it up to where it felt right. After a while i got curious as to where I was drawing the line and I switched on AirEQ's numerical display. I found I was going a fair bit higher than when I used Logic's Track EQ, where I was often EQing visually.

[dantheman65]

Yeah visual aids are fantastic but its really making a generation of us young guys lazy and not honing our ears as much as possible.

 

I close my eyes whenever I EQ anything now.

[JoeAMP]

Yeah visual aids are fantastic but its really making a generation of us young guys lazy and not honing our ears as much as possible...

 

 

A lot of engineers in my days had to listen to different tones as they where aligning tapes, and had to do the most menial tasks the studio engineer demanded. Setting up reverbs, delays making tea. This was a sort of apprenticeship, Looking back, we all learnt a lot. This is not to demean the young "project studio! bedroom producers" of today, music has changed and so has the industry.

 

I close my eyes whenever I EQ anything now.

 

I used to but kept twiddling the wrong knob