Topic: 100-700HZ (Read 8400 times)

J-Texas · « **on:** March 15, 2009, 10:17:41 AM »

I know J. has mentioned this range before as being really tough to "get" and very important at the same time. Give or take a few Hz.

Man am I realizing this now. Now? Finally.

I'm really finding where I like things to be 1k up and 100 down (finding... haven't found), but the meat in the sandwhich is where it's at. That area is so important and so easy to futz up.

Things can really be powerful or really muddy and a mess. I've really noticed this trying to mix for small speakers at lower levels.

j.hall · « **Reply #1 on:** March 16, 2009, 04:15:49 PM »

keep working at it. i certainly know that i am.

bob ebeling · « **Reply #2 on:** March 25, 2009, 11:18:07 AM »

It would be great for mixer channels to have a '-2db @ 220' button.

RSettee · « **Reply #3 on:** April 17, 2009, 08:53:21 PM »

I definetely like the 1-3 kHz range for a go to range in the liveliness of a mix. 100 Hz I don't use so much, I tend to use 250-400 Hz more. Some of the 500-700 Hz can get a bit too wooly at times, just as some 800-900 can be a bit nasal at times.

bblackwood · « **Reply #4 on:** April 17, 2009, 09:03:21 PM »

Getting 100-300 Hz right is really difficult but truly seems to separate the 'men from the boys'...

Phillip Graham · « **Reply #5 on:** April 17, 2009, 09:33:07 PM »

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 17 April 2009 21:03

Getting 100-300 Hz right is really difficult but truly seems to separate the 'men from the boys'...

And for us in the live sound world the most important range for getting the PA system to integrate properly with the room...

wwittman · « **Reply #6 on:** April 17, 2009, 09:37:06 PM »

FWIW, i almost always roll some low mid (somewhere between 300-700) on toms and bass drum and the odd other drum mic (like a room)

but on EVERYTHING else?
I almost never touch that range at all.

stevieeastend · « **Reply #7 on:** April 18, 2009, 05:16:44 PM »

wwittman wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 03:37

FWIW, i almost always roll some low mid (somewhere between 300-700) on toms and bass drum and the odd other drum mic (like a room)

but on EVERYTHING else?
I almost never touch that range at all.

I can second that Smile

although I am little sloppy when it comes to toms in general... rarely EQ them..

wwittman · « **Reply #8 on:** April 18, 2009, 11:53:34 PM »

that's okay, I rarely actually MIC them

j.hall · « **Reply #9 on:** April 19, 2009, 06:07:16 PM »

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 17 April 2009 20:03

Getting 100-300 Hz right is really difficult but truly seems to separate the 'men from the boys'...

INDEED!!!!

Chris Ilett · « **Reply #10 on:** April 20, 2009, 06:27:08 AM »

Phillip Graham wrote on Fri, 17 April 2009 20:33

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 17 April 2009 21:03

Getting 100-300 Hz right is really difficult but truly seems to separate the 'men from the boys'...

And for us in the live sound world the most important range for getting the PA system to integrate properly with the room...

Depending on the room Shocked

Phillip Graham · « **Reply #11 on:** May 01, 2009, 10:19:20 AM »

Chris Ilett wrote on Mon, 20 April 2009 06:27

Phillip Graham wrote on Fri, 17 April 2009 20:33

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 17 April 2009 21:03

Getting 100-300 Hz right is really difficult but truly seems to separate the 'men from the boys'...

And for us in the live sound world the most important range for getting the PA system to integrate properly with the room...

Depending on the room Shocked

Hey Chris,

What I meant by my statement is that not only is this frequency range important for the mix, but that the rooms' role with the speaker system influences it, too.

Most small professional speaker systems have a high degree of directivity (ie directional control of where the sound goes) above 2kHz, but below this point the wavelengths get large and spill around the sides/back of the box.

Just as your studio monitors interact differently in the recording space depending on whether they are near/far from the wall, the same is true with PA systems.

Unlike most studio settings where people seem adverse to speaker equalization, we use it as a powerful tool to smooth and shape the speaker/room combination through the mids and midbass. Often times the speaker location is dictated by factors of asthetics and is sub-optimal acoustically, so we utilize every tool we can get.

Using one of the major pro-sound analysis products, one can look at the phase behavior in the Nyquist plot of the system and ascertain if the response error is attributed to the loudspeaker system, or not. Since loudspeaker acoustical response is, in general, minimum phase, one can calculate the Hilbert transform of the magnitude response and see if the resulting calculated phase behavior matches the measured behavior.

If the measured phase is not minimum phase in nature, then it is generally time to start looking for acoustic treatment solutions, if the situation is amenable to this...

The only name I know of in the studio world who specifically does this kind of work is Bob Hodas.

Last fall, during and after his session on small space acoustics I had a lively discussion with John Storyck about WSDG's use of similar measurement techniques and equalization.

If you are an AES member, and listen to John's talk from AES 109 in San Fran, I am the fellow asking pointed questions throughout his talk Cool

Nacho · « **Reply #12 on:** May 08, 2009, 05:23:53 PM »

bob ebeling wrote on Wed, 25 March 2009 10:18

It would be great for mixer channels to have a '-2db @ 220' button.

And another one at 125-160hz!!!

andychamp · « **Reply #13 on:** May 12, 2009, 01:16:07 PM »

The realization that this area is hard to EQ properly has led me to pay more attention to mic choice & placement. Highs and lows are somehow easier to be aware of.
It's still a bit esoteric to me, but easier to achieve good results with than trying to get to grips with an EQ.
I like fixed-frequency EQs better than sweep EQs,anyway, because they either work, or they don't. I tend to lose myself - and time - with sweep EQs

J-Texas · « **Reply #14 on:** May 12, 2009, 03:04:25 PM »

andychamp wrote on Tue, 12 May 2009 12:16

The realization that this area is hard to EQ properly has led me to pay more attention to mic choice & placement. Highs and lows are somehow easier to be aware of.
It's still a bit esoteric to me, but easier to achieve good results with than trying to get to grips with an EQ.

Absolutely (as far as tracking) and I would just add mic patterns to that as well.

Hallams · « **Reply #15 on:** May 27, 2009, 07:11:28 PM »

This is something i'm trying to figure out in relation to the choice and placement of the mid mic in M/S. It is easy to get an open sounding result in stereo but as soon as i switch to mono the sound clouds over a bit mostly in the upper mids. It takes a lot more work to get this right. A quick "she'll be right mate" approach invariably gets it wrong.

Nick Sevilla · « **Reply #16 on:** May 28, 2009, 04:21:51 PM »

Once you figure out the song arrangement (and this is very very very very very important), you can than assign the instrument(s) that will fill this area.

When I'm mixing, and being given tracks that I did not record myself, I tend to pay hours of attention to the producers' intent in the arrangement, then it all seems to fall into place after that.

Panning sure helps this frequency area a lot, as well as using space FX (delays), dulling EQ on some instruments to make them seem farther, and lowering their levels as well.

When I'm encountering layered instruments (double guitars, et al) I tend to have one of them dominate a little more during parts, and the other during other parts of the song, thus making it more interesting to listen to, rather than a super-uniform blend of two instruments.

Cheers

Alécio Costa - Brazil · « **Reply #17 on:** May 30, 2009, 01:27:54 AM »

Combine a Fat Snare top/bottom, acoustic guitar (nylon or steel), a few congas or otther percussive elements and a boomy vocal track (s)...if you are not carefull, you might end up with a mix tearing your ears at 240-320hz.

A tougher secenario is when you have a 6 string acoustic guitar fighting against a 7 string acoustig guitar, a bass guitar and percussive intense stuff...

maarvold · « **Reply #18 on:** July 07, 2009, 12:17:40 AM »

For me, the true 'hate zone' (when it's not right) is 210 - 400 Hz, occasionally straying as low as 195 or as high as 550. But 'pet' areas to SLIGHTLY nip & tuck are 215, 240, 265, 320, 365 and 400 specifically--each one has its own uniquely annoying 'clogging' character when it is too big or not right. But you have to be very careful: it's easy to "throw the baby out with the bathwater".

Waltz Mastering · « **Reply #19 on:** July 07, 2009, 07:44:22 AM »

Maybe part of the reason the frequency range between 150 and 450 is sometimes hard to get a handle on is that a lot of the beef, or the range that adds a lot of the character and weight to many instruments seems to intersect there.

Besides the obvious instrument bass guitar, the low mid punch of a kick drum, the thwak or cajones of the snare, the girth of guitars, the bottom end of vocals, the low end of the keys, etc. are all some of the things that seem to be fighting for the same space in that region, so it just takes a little sorting out. To much and you get mud or dark, not enough and you get flimsy or light, just right and you can get things to stand up pretty nice.

mcsnare · « **Reply #20 on:** July 07, 2009, 11:27:42 PM »

It's hard to get that area right because most people can't hear that area accurately in their mix rooms.

Dave

maarvold · « **Reply #21 on:** July 08, 2009, 10:32:33 PM »

mcsnare wrote on Tue, 07 July 2009 20:27

It's hard to get that area right because most people can't hear that area accurately in their mix rooms.

Dave

TOTAL agreement here. And when you get it right (in your mix) it can be magical.

Seb Riou · « **Reply #22 on:** July 12, 2009, 06:03:46 AM »

mcsnare wrote on Tue, 07 July 2009 22:27

It's hard to get that area right because most people can't hear that area accurately in their mix rooms.

Dave

+1 on that

Hi, first post here.

mattianlaseppia · « **Reply #23 on:** July 16, 2009, 09:02:55 PM »

wow i forget how much beautiful is this forum!

well.. tonight i've done some measurement in my room to find the best place to recording my bass guitar.. strangely was in a corner, but all fit with a lot of rockwool, anyway.. i've a Gallien krueger amp for my bass guitar, before i had only tube amp, but that's another story. well.. the GK (rb700mkII) has it's cab rbh 2x10 with reflex

pink noise, mic for measurement and.. i found out that the GK is totally flat from 50 hz to 300 hz.. but for flat i mean FLAT!

not +/- 3db.. was around +/- 1 or max 2db but you don't notice it.. you see a line!

and that was from close micing till 88 cm means.. A LOT to me.

this amp is really fast and punchy and i think the way it treats the low end and the low mids is its goal.

so that can be related to the mix.

i think you need a flat and very focused range (there is nothing under 50hz in my GK) on the tracks you mix.. than you need a presence peak (the GK has a presence peak from 1.5 to 2k more or less.. exactly for the bass, you don't need the eq) depending on the track.. than you need a dip on the mid low depending on the nature of the track.

and that's the point where you can do the mix.. with dips in each tracks, different dips.. but i think just one.. or maybe a broadband and a narrow on a particular resonance.

i found out myself using the analyzer and this incredible airEQ plug in.. which with the Q at 7 you can cut just only 1db or 2 and if you cut more is too much (because you shift the problem in another part of the spectrum) watching the analyzer you can see that the audio goes down of 5/6 db or even more with just a cut of 1/2 db.. incredible. is like a mute for resonance.. (which eat the headroom of your 100/700 hz)

well i've seen that making the low end and mid lows as flat as i can catching resonances or with a broadband cut other times (or even shelf and hpf), and also with compression or multiband compression, i have a track that cuts the mix.

than i have just to define more the limits of each tracks in the mid/low end, meaning if a track has nothing interesting around 400 i cut a bit broadband (or Q at 1) here and if the bass has something interesting i boost.. than maybe i boost at 200 the kick and i cut the bass in the same range.

but before i think is essential work to have a flattest mid/low end and a hi mid/hi presence peak. you can even cut all the rest if you need a really clean/separated mix.

that's my thought.. maybe i'm wrong, let me know

Seb Riou · « **Reply #24 on:** July 17, 2009, 01:04:26 PM »

Lotsa lomids : could also be too much of close micing = proximity effect.

Nicky D · « **Reply #25 on:** July 25, 2009, 12:24:51 PM »

wwittman wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 22:53

that's okay, I rarely actually MIC them

Nicky D · « **Reply #26 on:** July 25, 2009, 12:27:47 PM »

Al

Logged

Print

Pages: 1 2 [All] Go Up

« previous next »

R/E/P Community >

R/E/P >

R/E/P Archives >

j. hall >

100-700HZ

SMF 2.0.19 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies

XHTML

RSS

WAP2

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.075 seconds with 21 queries.

R/E/P Community

Author Topic: 100-700HZ (Read 8400 times)