Premier Rock Forum

Hey everyone,

My latest obsessive-compulsive topic has been trying to decide how much low end there should be in my mixes. Sometimes it's glaringly obvious to me, but right now I'm doing an album in which I can't decide. Should I make the bass a bit light, and allow everyone's crappy modern "bass enhance" stereo compensate, or should I coat the songs with a thick low end? I don't want the songs to be boomy, but I don't want them to be thin either.

I can reference to other albums that I like... but some of them have more bass, some of them less, and some of them the same amount... I am completely unable to decide which I prefer.

I realise that the choice is completely subjective and dependant on the style of music, but I'm interested to see how other engineers approach low end. I guess my real question is whether or not anyone else gets tormented by this issue.

Hiverdude,

I realise that the choice is completely subjective and dependant on the style of music, but I'm interested to see how other engineers approach low end.

Yeah, you should keep this in mind. Every engineer is going to approach the low end in a different way and it's going to be different for every project they work on. Because of this, you are not going to get any straight response to this question. You should trust your ears and just find what sounds best, although this is easier said than done.

-Andrew

Hello,

when listening to my records collection I have guessed a tendency to flatten sound on the low end during the eighties and to enhance it during the nineties and I have thought this as a consequence of gear development and mastering techniques that are adapted to the playing equipment existing at the moment. I mean, if everyone had an awesome hi-fi that could reproduce a real low-end, maybe mastering and engineering would adapt to it. Considering that is not the case, the techniques vary slowly. I was thinking for example of Kevin Drumm's Sheer Hellism Miasma that has range of frequencies that is not very common (while listening to it in the train, the lady next to me changed seat and the girl who sat after her could not concentrate to read).

And what happened next!? Your story is so intense...

blast off!

Full frequency recordings are an unwished dream.

Maybe good for dogs.

hiverdude wrote:Hey everyone,
Should I make the bass a bit light, and allow everyone's crappy modern "bass enhance" stereo compensate, or should I coat the songs with a thick low end?

In my opinion, you should never consider what things might sound like if you were to listen to them on another imaginary system. At that point, you're totally fabricating an experience and reacting to the fabrication.

Trust what you're hearing on the system of the moment, and if that proves to be a problem elsewhere, it's a problem there, not here. If an overall tonal shift is required, that's precisely the sort of adjustment that can (and should) be handled by a good mastering engineer.

There is no such thing as a "standard" consumer hi-fi, and anything you do to compensate for one is a fiction and a waste of time. Andy Cohen's speakers, for example, are much better than those we use in the studio, apparently. Or so he says. He brags a lot. "Look at my new hi-fi." "Check out my new phono pre amp." "Whoo, I be making lawyer money!" "You can't hear it on your puny stereo, but there's a little surface noise there..."

Get familiar with the speakers you use, learn to trust what you're hearing and let the dude at the end of the chain sort his own shit out.

-steve

oscar ruiz wrote: Kevin Drumm's Sheer Hellish Miasma

Uh, hey...gang, um I have nothing to add to this thread other than the record mention above is stupendous.

I really appreciate the replies to my question.

I've made my decision... I've made the bass and kick a little quieter than I normally would. I feel comfortable with it there.

The album is quite unlike any other I've ever made. The main difference is that several of the songs are 48 tracks as opposed to my usual 16 to 24. That meant it took twice as long to record... I've lost quite a bit of perspective over the past few months.

The other big snag was that the drummer is very new... and quite honestly, not very good (I really hope he doesn't read this, as he's a great guy, and he *will* be good in a couple years.) This forced us to bury the drums deep underneath the rest of the instruments. ie: quiet, distant room mics only for most of the songs. I think overall it's been very benificial... limitations sure can force you to be creative. Still, I had a hard time with the bass guitar, since it was played very well through a gorgeous amp. I had these distant drums and a very fat bass... which I have heard work very well in recordings before... but it didn't seem to work for me here.

Anyways... sorry for rambling. If anyone's had the patience to get to this point in my post, I have another thing on my mind:

The dynamics on this album are completely insane. The bed tracks were dynamic on their own, but the overdubs have really pushed some parts over the top... I've also done some... um... unconventional things when I mixed it. The mixes sound great to me otherwise... the quiet part of the song sounds good, as does the loud part, it's just that the transition between the two can be a little frightening. Should I leave this to mastering guy to deal with as well? I'm hoping that Steve's thought of "go with what sounds good to you at the time" can apply to this as well.

Here's a short clip of what I've been doing... I wish I could put up more, but I don't think the artist would appreciate it. I had some fun trying to make the drums sound like a bontempi organ in the middle of this one.

http://www.hivestudios.net/hive_fi/imag ... 20Clip.mp3

Thanks again everyone!

Hiver D.

My guess is that you've figured this out already, but for anyone who hasn't -

It's a good idea to listen to your final mixes at several different volumes. There's solid research in psychoacoustics (Fletcher and Munson, Robinson and Dadson) showing that people perceive loudness differently at different tones. This is most pronounced at the extremes of the audible frequency spectrum (the real highs and lows in general). For the person mixing, remember that what sounds nice and balanced at high volume may lack low end definition at lower volumes.

Research suggests this would be the case even on equipment that was equally transparent at all volumes. Of course, no such equipment yet exists, so understanding how your stuff works at very loud and very soft is one more good dimension of familiarity.

I like music that's dense and noisy, and you can usually tell when it was mixed at ear shattering volumes. It used to puzzle me - "These guys are all low end attack when I see them live, but I keep checking my speakers to see if I've blown out the LF drivers when I listen to the record. What gives?" Conversely, it's always strange to mix down this stuff, having recorded it through big amps turned way up. I have to make sure the room is dead silent, barely able to hear the whisper of thundering heavy metal as I check the balance at a very quiet level.

Although I'm sure Luke Cambell has a different opinion. Is he on this board yet?

= Justin

I know LF drivers sounds a bit affected, but I can't use the word 'woofers' seriously.

>>There's solid research in psychoacoustics (Fletcher and Munson, Robinson and Dadson) showing that people perceive loudness differently at different tones. This is most pronounced at the extremes of the audible frequency spectrum (the real highs and lows in general). For the person mixing, remember that what sounds nice and balanced at high volume may lack low end definition at lower volumes.

what dBSPL is to absolute measured sound pressure level, the phon is to perceived volume.

here's a rough representation of the fletcher-munson 'equal loudness curves':



x axis is frequency, the y axis is dBSPL, and the curves are in phons. each curve represents a perceived volume level. think of it as:

10 phon barely audible
70 phon loud speaking voice
110 phon loudish live music
130 phon metallica

basically, the phon is the dBSPL adjusted for the response of the human ear.

at 1kHz, the number of dBSPL is the same as the number of phon. 10dBSPL of 1kHz results in 10 phons of perceived volume level, etc. however, as can be seen from the curves, 70dBSPL is required to get 10 phons of perceived volume level at 20Hz. as you can see, the curves flatten out as level increases, meaning the human ear responds more linearly with increased signal level (to a point).

>>Research suggests this would be the case even on equipment that was equally transparent at all volumes.

yes, it's independent of amplifiers, speakers, whatever. they all have their own problems with linearity, but this particular phenomenon is built into our listening apparatus.

the bible for this stuff is _master handbook of acoustics_ by f. alton everest. and unlike the bible, it's even fun to read.

actually, i have a preference on the topic of this thread: i prefer to err on the side of a bit too much low end, if anything. it's easier to trim it out in mastering than to try to manufacture it. probably you'll always have plenty of treble to work with, especially if you tend to mix more than one song a day.