R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: 80-200Hz fatness?  (Read 11190 times)

bobkatz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2926
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2005, 07:44:28 pm »

fj wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 19:32

Speaking of the HEDD, I'm curious how people are using the triode knob. It seems that it may add in the area the post is addressing. Which types of productions does it help on, what do you feel it adds, how much do you use?

I have had limited luck using the triode knob with some of the more "open" mixes I have worked with, but my unit is still new and I wouldn't call my self comfortable enough with the unit to make my own recommendations.



It's the knob I use the least, or should I say "hardly at all". It's extremely subtle and when you turn it up far enough to matter on the instrument that you care about it usually screws up some instrument or other. I suspect it would be most useful on an individual instrument track during mixing, but it has limited use I'd say in mastering entire tracks.

BK
Logged
There are two kinds of fools,
One says-this is old and therefore good.
The other says-this is new and therefore better."

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of
electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Adam Dempsey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2005, 09:06:45 pm »

Dave Davis wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 11:12

In addition to many of the good suggestions above, I'd consider something non-obvious: A good high pass filter below the lowest musically useful information you have.  Undesireable low harmonics eat a lot of power, and really do nasty things to the audible portions you care about.  Also, don't automatically assume you have anything worthwhile at 20Hz, simply because that's the lowest number you see... you may find that a setting considerably higher (>30 Hz) tightens up your bass in every environment.

-d-

Dave Davis
QCA Mastering/UltraInteractive


Not being able to avoid sharing what has worked so often for me, 10+ yrs in the same room...
A good HPF for tightening this sort of music ideally being steep (24dB/oct or more) and analogue (avoiding ringing).
Or two digital HPFs in series and a very gentle low shelf cut (eg no more than -0.5dB @ 20 to 30 Hz), then parallel compression (2:1) - the compressed signal followed by a hi shelf cut (eg -4dB @ 5k) and combined with the uncompressed signal to taste, keeps the highs 'alive' and can really add beefy character without sounding "EQ'd".

Worth a try and you may find you don't need to compress the overall mix - keep it tamed but thumping.
Logged
Adam Dempsey
Jack the Bear's Deluxe Mastering
Facebook | twitter | MySpace

Add presence, or subtract absence?

dcollins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2815
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2005, 10:48:33 pm »

Adam Dempsey wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 18:06


A good HPF for tightening this sort of music ideally being steep (24dB/oct or more) and analogue (avoiding ringing).



Well, not so sure about the ringing part, but filters can really help.  Maybe even start with a broad peak or shelf followed by the filter.

For most analog EQ's, the higher the dB/oct the more ringing there is.

DC


Adam Dempsey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #33 on: December 08, 2005, 12:40:28 am »

Yes, sorry, I meant any nasty high Q digital ringing, rather than the nicer, euphonic ringing as with some analgue EQ, eg our Orban 622B parametric - great for colour.
Logged
Adam Dempsey
Jack the Bear's Deluxe Mastering
Facebook | twitter | MySpace

Add presence, or subtract absence?

dcollins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2815
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #34 on: December 08, 2005, 01:00:21 am »

Adam Dempsey wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 21:40

Yes, sorry, I meant any nasty high Q digital ringing, rather than the nicer, euphonic ringing as with some analgue EQ, eg our Orban 622B parametric - great for colour.


If Bob Orban were here, he might say that if you have the same frequency curve in  analog and  IIR digital eq's, the phase response is the same.

Hilbert said so.

I have no idea why, but analog eq does seem to work better....

It's a growth industry!

DC

Viitalahde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1069
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #35 on: December 08, 2005, 01:03:11 am »

lagerfeldt wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 23:01

Do you use the SSL first, then the G10, or the other way around?


Depends, but sometimes I put the SSL clone first just to drive the G10, it's pretty clean gain I got there. I might do some tickleing with it too, but not much at all.

Sometimes it works really well the other way around also.
Logged
Jaakko Viitalähde
Virtalähde Mastering, Kuhmoinen/Finland
http://www.virtalahde.com
   http://www.facebook.com/pages/Helsinki-Finland/Virtalahde-Ma stering/278311633180

lagerfeldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 582
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #36 on: December 08, 2005, 04:26:25 am »

Viitalahde wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 07:03

lagerfeldt wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 23:01

Do you use the SSL first, then the G10, or the other way around?


Depends, but sometimes I put the SSL clone first just to drive the G10, it's pretty clean gain I got there. I might do some tickleing with it too, but not much at all.

Sometimes it works really well the other way around also.


I have enough gain going out from the DAW in 4+dBU. Is your SSL transformer balanced?

Viitalahde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1069
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #37 on: December 08, 2005, 05:06:50 am »

lagerfeldt wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 09:26

I have enough gain going out from the DAW in 4+dBU. Is your SSL transformer balanced?


Nope, it's actually modified/unbalanced. Into the VCA with a resistor, output is simply the I/V converter after the VCA.

I could tweak the gain on the DAW too but turning a knob is just so much more inconvenient.  Cool
Logged
Jaakko Viitalähde
Virtalähde Mastering, Kuhmoinen/Finland
http://www.virtalahde.com
   http://www.facebook.com/pages/Helsinki-Finland/Virtalahde-Ma stering/278311633180

ammitsboel

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1300
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #38 on: December 08, 2005, 12:48:39 pm »

lagerfeldt wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 20:14

Henrik, have you changed the setup so you can now get hotter levels into the GX, and then really turn up the gain ALL the way?

I'm doing this a lot lately, have you checked out what it does to the harmonics, it's f*cking incredible! You can actually view it in a freq analyzer, the harmonics just spike all the way up when you turn the dial and the sound gets fuller, creamy and full of life and details.

I have all the gain I want now from a nice preamp in front of it.
I think there are good things and bad things about cranking the gain in the G10. In some aspects the sound gets bigger and more open, but in other aspects it gets more closed in. I consider the effect to be too much for mastering unless you really do receive indescribably bad audio to work with? I tend to run the output low so I don't saturate the core of the output transformer, too me it sounds closed in when it saturates. How do you run your output and what to you prefer?

The overall effect of the G10 is caused by the whole circuit and not just the tubes'n'transformers.

Are you still sitting close to your monitors?
Logged
"The male brain is designed for ecstasy" -Dr. Harvey "Gizmo" Rosenberg

Viitalahde

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1069
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #39 on: December 08, 2005, 01:06:39 pm »

ammitsboel wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 17:48

I tend to run the output low


I run the output pretty low too and do the saturation (if I do) at the input.

But let's not forget that when gainstaged & used more traditionally, the G10 is a very good sounding compressor.

I'm thinking of testing a high pass filter in the sidechain some day.
Logged
Jaakko Viitalähde
Virtalähde Mastering, Kuhmoinen/Finland
http://www.virtalahde.com
   http://www.facebook.com/pages/Helsinki-Finland/Virtalahde-Ma stering/278311633180

lagerfeldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 582
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #40 on: December 08, 2005, 03:38:02 pm »

ammitsboel wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 18:48

I have all the gain I want now from a nice preamp in front of it.
I think there are good things and bad things about cranking the gain in the G10. In some aspects the sound gets bigger and more open, but in other aspects it gets more closed in. I consider the effect to be too much for mastering unless you really do receive indescribably bad audio to work with? I tend to run the output low so I don't saturate the core of the output transformer, too me it sounds closed in when it saturates. How do you run your output and what to you prefer?

The overall effect of the G10 is caused by the whole circuit and not just the tubes'n'transformers.

Are you still sitting close to your monitors?


As for my monitoring situation, actually I find myself moving further back when mastering which provide a more holistic pespective that I'm enjoying and finding more and more useful. But it certainly takes some getting used to after 15 years of super nearfielding when mixning and producing Smile

I love gaining the input on the G10 but I too keep the output down, since this causes some kind of midrange compression/closing. Everything is +4dBU but sometimes I use Lo Gain on the converter (upper bass seems to be clearer for some reason here?). I then gain a bit extra on the output on the transformer balanced SSL clone Jakob built (which sounds nicer than the standard DYI or Danfield 726).


Adam Dempsey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 546
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #41 on: December 08, 2005, 08:01:55 pm »

dcollins wrote on Thu, 08 December 2005 17:00

Adam Dempsey wrote on Wed, 07 December 2005 21:40

I meant any nasty high Q digital ringing, rather than the nicer, euphonic ringing as with some analgue EQ, eg our Orban 622B parametric - great for colour.


If Bob Orban were here, he might say that if you have the same frequency curve in  analog and  IIR digital eq's, the phase response is the same.

Hilbert said so.

DC


Yes, totally correct in theory & there's more to analogue EQs than frequency curves & phase shifts but our Orban EQs are custom modified & the 622B is not a neutral sounding unit. The ringing comments, above, are in reference to 24 dB/octave hi pass filters and risk of ringing with many digital filters that are that steep.
(HPFs not featured on the Orban parametric but on the tube EQ http://www.dexaudio.com.au/html/media_404.html)
Logged
Adam Dempsey
Jack the Bear's Deluxe Mastering
Facebook | twitter | MySpace

Add presence, or subtract absence?

Thomas Detert

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #42 on: December 11, 2005, 09:24:08 am »

Did you ever used a SEBATRON on the Low End ?  Cool
I use the VEQC 2000 which sound pretty good !

Have a look at http://www.sebatron.com

cheers,
Thomas
Logged

lagerfeldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 582
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #43 on: December 11, 2005, 10:18:00 am »

Thomas Detert wrote on Sun, 11 December 2005 15:24

Did you ever used a SEBATRON on the Low End ?  Cool
I use the VEQC 2000 which sound pretty good !

Have a look at http://www.sebatron.com

cheers,
Thomas



Hello Thomas, nice to see you here!

I couldn't find the VEQC 2000 on the website?

thephatboi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 271
Re: 80-200Hz fatness?
« Reply #44 on: December 11, 2005, 02:14:21 pm »

This is a plug-in but the Cranesong Phoenix can help with fatness and percieved volume. I think it is too much of a blanket to put over a whole mix but what I do is put it on a stereo aux track then send submixes (drums, bass, vox) to it and blend in the amount I want, usually different instantiations with diff. settings for the various groups or tracks I might send to it. If you can get Phoenix only on the bottom end of your mix you might find it helps alot. BTW how are you guys splitting up your frequency bands to process only the bottom of a mix through something and then recombine it with the rest of the mix? Is there a plug-in that works like a crossover, which can send the different bands out for separate processing? I would really like to be able to do this.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up