Dubstepforum.com

Hey Guys,

Few questions here...

1. I was watching a few "In the studio" videos the other day, one producer (specifically Nicky Romero) always cut everything above 18k, explaining that these high frequencies were not needed, especially in the clubs. I always cut the lows on channels that don't need them but I was wondering about the highs as well. What do you guys do and why?

2. My second question was regarding boosting EQ's. I have always read to cut only. In recent "in the studio" videos, a handful of producers were boosting their EQs on specific synths (granted it was a small amount). Under what circumstances do you guys tend to boost and any tips you have would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your time.

Boost if it's lacking subtract if it's muddy. Low pass at 20k

That's just me tho

ehbrums1 wrote:Boost if it's lacking subtract if it's muddy. Low pass at 20k

That's just me tho

^ Same except for the lowpass at 20k (again, that's just me).

Look at old school analog equalizers like pultecs. Helped me learn what to cut or boost because you only have certain options

good points. thanks guys.

Have you ever tested your range of hearing? I generated some sines in audacity one time and I think around 17.5kHz was the highest I could hear. So then somewhere around there would be a good place to lowpass everything. I usually only hear hi hats occupying that range.

Do any of you guys use graphic equalizers instead of parametric equalizers? I imagine I would be more conservative with my boosts and cuts if I did that. It seems like the attitude towards equalization is that 'less is more' and maybe that would keep me from going overboard.

I think the reason you hear people saying to do subtractive eq'ing only is because when you want to boost something, it's because you want to enhance or try to make something bigger and better sounding and then you feel like you have to boost other things to compensate and it just turns into a conflict. If you choose to only cut, you are more critically listening to the sounds and finding what needs to go in order for the other elements to be able to be big and to shine. What you want to do is to compromise so that everything sits together and isn't clashing. Cut the fat so that there's room for other things instead of trying to make everything big.

I boost and/or cut when it comes to sound design and only cut when it comes to mixing.
that's just me though

Artie Fufkin wrote:Have you ever tested your range of hearing? I generated some sines in audacity one time and I think around 17.5kHz was the highest I could hear. So then somewhere around there would be a good place to lowpass everything. I usually only hear hi hats occupying that range.

Do any of you guys use graphic equalizers instead of parametric equalizers? I imagine I would be more conservative with my boosts and cuts if I did that. It seems like the attitude towards equalization is that 'less is more' and maybe that would keep me from going overboard.

I think the reason you hear people saying to do subtractive eq'ing only is because when you want to boost something, it's because you want to enhance or try to make something bigger and better sounding and then you feel like you have to boost other things to compensate and it just turns into a conflict. If you choose to only cut, you are more critically listening to the sounds and finding what needs to go in order for the other elements to be able to be big and to shine. What you want to do is to compromise so that everything sits together and isn't clashing. Cut the fat so that there's room for other things instead of trying to make everything big.

Interesting I will test out some frequencies in that range, see what I can hear. I haven't necessarily been cutting all the highs, however lots of times the highs on some of my sounds are too harsh so I will dampen them a bit but I suppose it doesn't free up much more headroom like cutting the lows does. Thx again guys.

bigdaveo11 wrote:

Artie Fufkin wrote:Have you ever tested your range of hearing? I generated some sines in audacity one time and I think around 17.5kHz was the highest I could hear. So then somewhere around there would be a good place to lowpass everything. I usually only hear hi hats occupying that range.

Do any of you guys use graphic equalizers instead of parametric equalizers? I imagine I would be more conservative with my boosts and cuts if I did that. It seems like the attitude towards equalization is that 'less is more' and maybe that would keep me from going overboard.

I think the reason you hear people saying to do subtractive eq'ing only is because when you want to boost something, it's because you want to enhance or try to make something bigger and better sounding and then you feel like you have to boost other things to compensate and it just turns into a conflict. If you choose to only cut, you are more critically listening to the sounds and finding what needs to go in order for the other elements to be able to be big and to shine. What you want to do is to compromise so that everything sits together and isn't clashing. Cut the fat so that there's room for other things instead of trying to make everything big.

Interesting I will test out some frequencies in that range, see what I can hear. I haven't necessarily been cutting all the highs, however lots of times the highs on some of my sounds are too harsh so I will dampen them a bit but I suppose it doesn't free up much more headroom like cutting the lows does. Thx again guys.

id by dampening you mean cutting frequencies then yes you are freeing up headroom, its the same theory as cutting everything below 20 hz

Ya, unless you are making special music for special speakers for special humans/animals lol, you don't need anything under 20 Hz or over 20,000 Hz. That's just dead weight to your track, eating up headroom. I would only go as low as a C around 30Hz. Anything under that is just about useless. And as for high frequency stuff, sometimes if you play around with ring modulation or if you go overboard with distortion, you might get a huge amount of stuff that you can't even hear, but you can see if you take a look at an oscilloscope or spectrum analyzer. In Renoise, it looks like the lines of the wave have been bolded or they look like semi circles filled in on the scopes. I woudl consider that a red flag lol

My problem with this is that if I cut below 20hz or above 20khz, I feel some change in the sound (for worst). For years I though it was either Psychological or I had some kind of superpowers or maybe EQ's start cutting before the cutoff frequency, so I stopped doing that.

But now that I think better, could it be phase? I did the cuts without linearphase EQ's, so that's probably why I heard some change when doing this cuts. So maybe next time, I'll add a highpass/lowpass at 20hz/20kHz at the master channel with a linearphase filter (won't do it channel by channel. I hate mixing with latency). Let's see what it turns out

Anyone noticed this?

Artie Fufkin wrote:Have you ever tested your range of hearing? I generated some sines in audacity one time and I think around 17.5kHz was the highest I could hear. So then somewhere around there would be a good place to lowpass everything. I usually only hear hi hats occupying that range.

Do any of you guys use graphic equalizers instead of parametric equalizers? I imagine I would be more conservative with my boosts and cuts if I did that. It seems like the attitude towards equalization is that 'less is more' and maybe that would keep me from going overboard.

I think the reason you hear people saying to do subtractive eq'ing only is because when you want to boost something, it's because you want to enhance or try to make something bigger and better sounding and then you feel like you have to boost other things to compensate and it just turns into a conflict. If you choose to only cut, you are more critically listening to the sounds and finding what needs to go in order for the other elements to be able to be big and to shine. What you want to do is to compromise so that everything sits together and isn't clashing. Cut the fat so that there's room for other things instead of trying to make everything big.

I can only hear up to about 19.3 khz. after that i hear the static and overtones more than any fundamental ringing. i'd say it makes sense to cut out everything you personally can't hear. it's not going to make much of a difference, and your track might as well sound as close to other people as it does to you. also, your headphones may be to blame. mine supposedly have a 15hz-30khz output, but the actual frequency response graph shows that there's a sharp cutoff above about 10khz. i had to crank the sound on my computer to hear the tones generated in audacity.

cutting the highs that I cannot hear makes sense^ thanks for the reply and all the others as well.

I boost AND cut for both sound design AND mixing.

As has been said before, that's just me.

The reason that a lot of people say to avoid boosting frequencies is because that added resonance can sound a lot less natural than cutting. When Making sounds, sometimes I will boost but usually just small boosts and a wide Q. There's obviously exceptions: an example being I was sampling from an old jazz tune, and I boosted the shit out of everything above about 15 khz and cut out everything below it. It was from a vinyl recording so what I was left with was this really nice crackling and basically white noise from the higher range of the hi hats; and I layered it to one of my hiphop tracks to give it some added texture. My point is that occasionally I will boost things for a certain effect (especially because maybe I want something to sound "un-natural). I also tend to give a little boost to my snares and kicks if need be. But when it comes to mixing, I almost never boost anything, I pretty much just cut at that point.

Artie Fufkin wrote:
Do any of you guys use graphic equalizers instead of parametric equalizers? I imagine I would be more conservative with my boosts and cuts if I did that. It seems like the attitude towards equalization is that 'less is more' and maybe that would keep me from going overboard.

i definately use visual eqs. much easier to see. dont get me wrong param eqs are good to but exactly what you said your cuts, boosts and rollloffs would be alot more precise if you were to use visual eqs. I definately recomend them

provided you have the headroom, boost 'till it sounds good

cut 'till it sounds good

don't be a dumbass about it-- +/- 20db of anything is rarely the solution. unless, of course, that's what it needs.

and changing supersonic stuff (+20khz) can definitely affect the things that are audible, making high-end things (cymbals, reverb tails, ambience) sound clunky and fake. harmonics do definitely live above there. You may not hear it, but you sense it-- and that can matter. be careful cutting the highs just because you don't hear it.

w/ that said-- sometimes clunky and fake is the right way to go.

Some tiny little sounds at 20khz aren't gunna affect the mix.

So cut them out if you like but they shouldn't be a problem anyway.

Filthzilla wrote:Some tiny little sounds at 20khz aren't gunna affect the mix.

Ever heard of 808s? I'm 95% percent sure they use extremely high frequencies in tandem with the low one you hear. Something about the high noises changing the way you hear the bass. I can hear this effect in J Coles Workout pretty clearly. I'm sure someone else has more info.

Killamike49 wrote:

Filthzilla wrote:Some tiny little sounds at 20khz aren't gunna affect the mix.

Ever heard of 808s? I'm 95% percent sure they use extremely high frequencies in tandem with the low one you hear. Something about the high noises changing the way you hear the bass. I can hear this effect in J Coles Workout pretty clearly. I'm sure someone else has more info.

Hmm, when I run an 808 kit through a spectrum analyser nothing picks up at 20khz. :L