Low Freq. Roll off - do it in the mix or save it for mastering

[ONDRAY]

For kicks, sub bass, bass and other low freq. channels, do you normally roll off 53hz, 40, hz, 60 hz,.etc. whatever during the mix or do you leave it for mastering? If so what would you say the 'norm" freq. roll off is for EDM?

What are some cons and pros of doing one way vs the other?

[sourcekode]

i don't think there's really a standard for this and if you try to follow one, you'll likely lose alot of frequencies that you actually want. as with most things you have to use your ears and place elements in the frequency that allows them to do their thing. listen to your mix and ask yourself where frequency problems are happening. then use tools like eq and panning to fix them. but if it aint broke...

[ONDRAY]

I don't think i worded this correctly. Yes my ears will have to be used, and so do EQ's.

Now correct me if I'm wrong. But I've heard that SOME ME's usually roll off below 60hz depending on the track, it could differ. I'm just wondering if this should also be done during mixdown to tighten up the low end.

let's say I rolled off the just a bit at 50hz to give room for the sub, but I also roll the sub a few db's at 43hz. then the mastering guy puts a roll off of 41hz on the whole thing. wouldn't this kill my low end.

[nofi]

...if you're worried about that, you should make sure you go to a mastering professional who actually listens to your track before applying low cut eq!


I always do it in mastering, but keep thinking it'd be good to try in mixdown sometime on just the tracks with bass in them... haven't gotten around to that yet.

[joshelevator]

i don't do one across the main mix, but occasionally use it on bass or kick... usually not, i prefer to use a shelf or do a dip with a parametric. it depends on the individual track and the overall song. i wouldn't consider cutting a mix at 43 although im sure some people might in order to make sure the track sounds tight...but i think thats still a bit high. some MEs cut for vinyl at 30, some even at 20....i like to keep the bass low (bass is good), and if a mix has a bit too much bass, that ain't always a bad thing. if its really too fat, eq the bass. listen to it on a bunch of systems-boombox, stereo speakers, larger speakers if available and send it to a good ME, who knows your style of music.

[ONDRAY]

The ME I send it to has no problems with the mixdown, he likes them. It's just for me personally sometimes I'm inbetween the desicion of shelfing the low on kick and bass, or not. When I don't shelf it doesn't sound as tight, but then I want more bass, I guess I'm always looking for that happy medium.

What would you say is to much? -12db @ 43Hz ?, -6db @60Hz,.. your thoughts. (and I know it depends on material, just curious?)

Just trying to feel how some of you guys on the board feel about this.

[Lagerfeldt]

Low cut in the individual tracks in the mix where ever it is truly necessary. Listen and observe the phase changes too as you don't get a free lunch every time in terms of headroom.

Low cut should not be used as a substitute for low shelving or parametric eq. A good rule of thumb is for the low cut to be inaudible but remove subs that eat up headroom in certain instruments. Of course you can use it for coloration too.

During mastering: while a 20Hz 24dB/Octave would be perfectly normal, a 50Hz 24dB/Octave isn't. Unless there's some kind of problem you would apply a more gentle slope the higher the frequency, e.g. a 6dB/Octave slope at 60 Hz.

[sardi]

I would hope to god NO ONE would be rolling off anywhere near 40-60Hz on my mixes!!

That's where the most important part of a lot of dance music genres lies. The real low sub will be gone in a club environment if you were cutting those freqs out.

I guess it depends on your target audience, but if you're making music for clubs I wouldn't be rolling off any higher than 25Hz personally.

I think a lot of people get these ideas from what some engineers do for Radio/TV mastering, especially these days to gain a db or two more level due to the LOUDNESS wars.

[Luko]

i do it in the mix

I roll off everything that isnt noticeable on every single track, in an attempt to maintain as much of my headroom as possible

i thought that was the norm... please set my on the right path if this is bad

probably what i get for listening to advice off forums

edit: i am talking when making a song, i do it to all tracks within the song, if we are talking finnished product and the 2-bus, then no, i would leave that to mastering unless i was gonna give it a spin myself off CDR then i would just hi-pass with simplon at 38 khz

[Stiff]

My attitude is this: If you are the guy doing the mix and have to ask yourself whether you should wait for something to be done in the mastering or not - then do it in the mix. I don't care for the "we'll fix it in the master"-attitude. As the mixer, do what you can to make it sound good.

[MrHope]

I filter my samples below 24 Hz to gain some headroom. I used to filter my individual tracks below 40 Hz, and it really didn't hurt. I gained a lot of headroom back that way with certain sounds. Lately I haven't been filtering tracks much at all except for some crazy VST instruments that creat asymmetrical waveforms (all positive or all negative).

If you can help the song by filtering, do it on a per-track basis. Don't worry about he mastering engineer.

[ONDRAY]

I’m glad I asked this as I was rolling of 40hz usually -6db and was noticing something wasn’t right when I heard it on a club environment. I read it in one of those future music magz (or CM, can’t remember). Guess you can’t trust everything you read in a magazine either. Or maybe it was for pop radio. Any way I’ll give some of these new techniques a shot, thanks.

[Kindred]

i filter under 20-30 usually depending on the relationship between the bassline, kick & any incidental bass left in pads etc.

this tends to be a very genre-specific thing - ie - house producers & mastering engineers will often take out some sub bass that a breaks/dnb producer wouldnt as sub bass tends to sit better with breakbeat as you don't (in general) need the punch of a 4/4 kick to stand out of the mix.

whenever I have left sub bass in (making house/techno) it has sucked up a lot of headroom and takes away from the impact of the kick and the overall impression of loudness. Of course, sidechaining the kick to the bass is a partial way around this if you like that pumpy sound.

[edit machine]

I always do this kind of filtering in the mix. when a high pass (low cut) filter is applied in the mastering stage it often seems to me that it hurts the track...sorta skews the harmonic center of the bass frequencies and sometimes makes the whole track seem a bit out of tune or something...

when i do use a high pass on bass elements, i've found 18 db per octave is the most transparent on my productions. but mostly now if i feel an element has too much low end that is making it sound muddy i prefer to use a low shelf or even a little parametric eq dip at the problem frequency.

[lord_bunny]

My take is mix the song for the song and it's genre, if that means taming the kick and bass around 45, do it.

Do it in the mix if you feel the mix needs it, and if you have a close relationship with your M.E. you would ask them what their preference is. I think M.E.'s are great at helping a mix engineer mix better... they're the most capable of checking your work for you.

If your not confident with your monitoring situation however... you might just want to leave that stuff up to the next cat in line.

[ralphski]

I will roll off individual tracks in the mix as long as I don't hear a difference. I turn the sub on when rolling of the kick and bass - they are really where you have to focus and it depends on individual tracks.

Unlike Sardi I will easilly roll off 40 - 60hz - he always complains that my tracks don't have enough bass. Or drum.

[barefoot]

From a technical perspective I agree with filtering individual tracks rather than the entire mix. And it's probably a good idea to use an analog filter unless you're confident that your digital filter is well designed for low frequencies. Digital filtering at sub frequencies can sometimes result in unpleasant artifacts that bleed into the higher frequencies.

From an artistic perspective, I would just suggest using a light hand, lest you wind up with sterile sounding mixes. Use a touch of low-shelf cut rather than a hi-pass filter. Sometimes a little funky f*cked up interaction in the low end adds spice and character to your music.

[ralphski]

I should point out that I myself don't use filters for Low End roll off - I mainly use the Renainscance EQs - find that I can get the most low end out without introducing any resonance whatsoever.

[Lagerfeldt]

The Renaissance is not that good for low cutting actually. Still better than stock EQs though (bundled with the sequencer such as Logic, Cubase and PT).

Maybe you don't find the resonance it introduces as bothersome as the stock EQs but that's another matter :-) However the low shelf is borderline useless IMO.

Try the Sonalksis SV-517 and compare.

[ralphski]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

The Renaissance is not that good for low cutting actually. Still better than stock EQs though (bundled with the sequencer such as Logic, Cubase and PT).

Maybe you don't find the resonance it introduces as bothersome as the stock EQs but that's another matter :-) However the low shelf is borderline useless IMO.

Try the Sonalksis SV-517 and compare.

All right, I've tried it. Haven't used the sonalksis plugs before but I quite like the EQ - a bit of a pleasant surprise. Also I really liked the compressor (can't remember the model now but it was green, and worked great on the beats coming out of GURU or BFD).

cheers.
ralphski

[edit machine]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

The Renaissance is not that good for low cutting actually. Still better than stock EQs though (bundled with the sequencer such as Logic, Cubase and PT).

I totally agree, waves eq's are bad for low cut/high pass on anything important.

for me the only acceptable software based low cut/high pass is the oxford eq set to 18 db per octave.

analog is always better, but in a pinch or on a super low budget, the oxford will do the job.

[sardi]

Originally Posted by edit machine

I totally agree, waves eq's are bad for low cut/high pass on anything important.

for me the only acceptable software based low cut/high pass is the oxford eq set to 18 db per octave.

analog is always better, but in a pinch or on a super low budget, the oxford will do the job.

BINGO!!

Sony Oxford is a fantastic EQ.... esp with the GML option. And great for the aforementioned task.

[aeonsound]

everything that's not kick/bass gets lowcut beneath about 100-150.

sometimes, depending on the sample, the kick will need a smidgen of sub taken away. but generally the kick and bass are left as subby as possible. for psytrance you do need a big, deep bottom end...

[ralphski]

Just out of curiousity, and this is somewhat low end roll of related:

What plugs do you guys use to EQ your kick drums, especially subtractive EQ to get rid off that ringy resonance that occurs somewhere in the 150 - 280 range, and that double that again?

I am currently using Renainscance EQ for that, but since using the sonalksis EQ (it's like I am in a new universe), I think I want something better... but the Waves REN EQ has a really sharp Q which is great for subtractive EQ (or at least to this point in my mind has been)

I am ready to be schooled...

[Daniel Antix]

i do all my eq'ing in the mix

the less you have ot do in the master the better.