The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
One Note Bass Equalizer Plugins
Old 20th January 2009
  #1
Gear nut
 

One Note Bass

I viewed the Bob Katz video on bass Frequency Surgery and found it highly interesting. It's a new name for me but I have always handled this problem quite differently

The history on this included me reading in a text (???) that the body of an acoustic bass (double-contra) was an acoustic amplifier tuned to approximately 100 Hz and causing a doubling of the sound pressure level at these frequencies. Putting this together with the fact that the upper notes on a bass are weak, plus some research at Motown's Engineering Department in the 1960's caused me to develop a technique I call Octave Replacement EQ. It worked great on the acoustioc bass, but to my surprise it seemed to work just about as well on the electric bass. It seemed that the electric bass had this same resonance but it was somewhat duller.

So here's the technique that I have used for decades and regularly teach:

(begin insert)

Octave Replacement EQ of the Bass

If you had a bass player play scales for you, you would discover that on the lower pitches the instrument sound quite boomy and on the upper pitches sound "weak." For the different instruments commonly used in pop music, the bass perhaps has the most uneven tone. Many engineers will almost automatically reach for a compressor on the bass when mixing.

The Motown Engineering Department, in the 1960's, ran tests on the bass and determined that the instrument generated harmonic energy an octave up from the fundamental pitch being played which was as loud as the fundamental. The 1960's Motown mastering division used this data to filter out the real low octave of the bass sound, allowing higher recording levels without losing bass line clarity.

Using this data in the 1970's I developed a mixing technique for the bass, which I call "Octave Replacement EQ." The "boom frequency" of 100 Hz is reduced while the energy an octave up is boosted. It usually sounds better to have the boost slightly less than the reduction.
OCTAVE REPLACEMENT EQ - TYPICAL SETTINGS
Frequency
Level
Q
100 Hz
-6 dB
1.4
200 Hz
+5 dB
1.4

Use of Octave Replacement EQ in mixing tends to make the bass line more even and sound louder.

(end insert)

Although it talks about "mixing" it is also a mastering technique I use.

I could help but wonder if the bass line Bob EQ'd would have responded to a similar EQ. Any thoughts?

Bob Dennis
Old 20th January 2009
  #2
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
I think the theory you are explaining here probably carries a lot more weight in dealing with the fundamental frequency of a given instrument and how it would sit in a mix more so than how it would be applied to mastering.

You can't assume that every song with a bass in it is going to be boomy at 100 Hz.

A mix could have an aggressive bump at any frequency range caused by the fundamental frequency of any instrument and you would naturally want to cut those frequencies if they were a problem and maybe boost a neighboring frequency if the recording was lacking in the department.

There are a lot of factors that would cause someone to think that they are hearing a bump at any frequency range. i.e. room, monitors, ears and correctly or incorrectly try to adjust for it.

I think Bob and Motown's Engineering Department definitely know what there talking about, but I think you have to listen to what's in front of you and shouldn't universally apply eq curves to mixes or masters IMHO.

TW
Old 20th January 2009
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Jaques Beraques's Avatar
 

funny,thats exactly,what I´m doing in the mix.
Old 20th January 2009
  #4
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering View Post
I think the theory you are explaining here probably carries a lot more weight in dealing with the fundamental frequency of a given instrument and how it would sit in a mix more so than how it would be applied to mastering.

You can't assume that every song with a bass in it is going to be boomy at 100 Hz.
Of course there is no EQ that works every time. The point is that this is a problem that happens often with the bass instrument (and not that much with other instruments) - I also vary the frequency depending on the key of the song because you can read out (on the spectrum) what frequency is doing this in the song at hand (e.g. 80 & 160 Hz for the key of E)
Quote:

A mix could have an aggressive bump at any frequency range caused by the fundamental frequency of any instrument and you would naturally want to cut those frequencies if they were a problem and maybe boost a neighboring frequency if the recording was lacking in the department.

There are a lot of factors that would cause someone to think that they are hearing a bump at any frequency range. i.e. room, monitors, ears and correctly or incorrectly try to adjust for it.

I think Bob and Motown's Engineering Department definitely know what there talking about, but I think you have to listen to what's in front of you and shouldn't universally apply eq curves to mixes or masters IMHO.

TW
Thanks for the reply.

Bob
Old 20th January 2009
  #5
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaques Beraques View Post
funny,thats exactly,what I´m doing in the mix.
- thanx

Bob
Old 20th January 2009
  #6
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdisc View Post
The point is that this is a problem that happens often with the bass instrument (and not that much with other instruments) - I also vary the frequency depending on the key of the song because you can read out (on the spectrum) what frequency is doing this in the song at hand (e.g. 80 & 160 Hz for the key of E)

I agree, It's more of a recording and mix thing to think about.

TW
Old 20th January 2009
  #7
Gear Guru
 
Ethan Winer's Avatar
 

Great thread Bob.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdisc View Post
the instrument generated harmonic energy an octave up from the fundamental pitch being played which was as loud as the fundamental.
Yes, and on my stock 1960s Precision Bass I've seen the 2nd harmonic be as much as 12 dB louder than the fundamental when I pluck the strings over the pickups. The only time the fundamental is actually louder than the 2nd harmonic is if you pluck over the 12th fret. (Using the FFT analyzer in Sound Forge.)

Quote:
Use of Octave Replacement EQ in mixing tends to make the bass line more even and sound louder.
I do this often too. My current tune is in the key of A so I'm using 110 and 220 Hz instead of 100 and 200 Hz.

--Ethan
Old 20th January 2009
  #8
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdisc View Post
I viewed the Bob Katz video on bass Frequency Surgery and found it highly interesting. It's a new name for me but I have always handled this problem quite differently
Dear Bob (Dennis):

Your observations on this are accurate, but we must remember that as time marches on, the loudspeakers available to consumers (and hopefully to professionals) are more extended than they were even in Motown's heyday. The more accurate the monitor system, the easier it is to evaluate whether the bass needs help in the second harmonic region. And the power of the fundamental (especially for the bass drum, and especially for dance music and hip hop) is higher than it's ever been in contemporary music history. We're getting used to hearing more energy below 60 Hz than ever before.

As such, people mixing on systems that are missing the fundamental range often exagerrate the boominess in a way that will not translate to wide range systems, especially to clubs and cars with subwoofers. The solution: Mix and master with the widest-range system possible.

In fact, to make a demonstration video whose point could be understood, I had to artificially produce a boomy recording with a boom frequency that might be audible on even some computer systems. Still, there are many playback systems, including my Macbook Pro, where the artificially high boom frequency that I demonstrated (124 Hz) is not even audible as a problem!
Old 20th January 2009
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Cellotron's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Important to note that the typical 60's Motown bass sound (as done by the amazing James Jamerson & Bob Babbit) - with Precision bass played fingerstyle with relatively dead strings feeding a custom DI going to tape - is definitely not always typical of bass sounds that are found on recording these days.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Old 21st January 2009
  #10
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethan Winer View Post
Great thread Bob.



Yes, and on my stock 1960s Precision Bass I've seen the 2nd harmonic be as much as 12 dB louder than the fundamental when I pluck the strings over the pickups. The only time the fundamental is actually louder than the 2nd harmonic is if you pluck over the 12th fret. (Using the FFT analyzer in Sound Forge.)


I do this often too. My current tune is in the key of A so I'm using 110 and 220 Hz instead of 100 and 200 Hz.

--Ethan
Thanks for your comments/observences. Of course, over the 12th fret you are just about only exciting the fundmental.
-

This Octave replacement is best used as a mixing tool, but I'm amazed how well it works in mastering. When I use it for mixing I pretty much stick to the Q of 1.4 (one octave) but when I master I will often pull in that bandwidth so as to not seriously affect other instruments. Bob Katz's suggestion of a Q of twelve was very interesting because it really wasn't destroying any other instrument or pitch put out by the bass - a good thing for the example, but wih a different bass line....

Take Care

Bob
Old 21st January 2009
  #11
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
Dear Bob (Dennis):

Your observations on this are accurate, but we must remember that as time marches on, the loudspeakers available to consumers (and hopefully to professionals) are more extended than they were even in Motown's heyday. The more accurate the monitor system, the easier it is to evaluate whether the bass needs help in the second harmonic region. And the power of the fundamental (especially for the bass drum, and especially for dance music and hip hop) is higher than it's ever been in contemporary music history. We're getting used to hearing more energy below 60 Hz than ever before.
I'm very much aware of the change in the monitoring available today - but the small and inferior monitoring of the 1960's didn't much affect what we did then - it was the limitation of the disc groove. Alhough I've masteed tens of thousands of cuts in my career, 95% of them have been to disc, which has severe bass restrictions when you are trying to get a loud master. The original formula was to boost 100 Hz and filter at 70 Hz. Our "surgery" was later developed to use a 45 db/octave 70 Hz filter and change the way that the bass was recorded/mixed (as well as the kick). This wouldn't work well today but is the source of the Octave Replacement EQ I use.

The octave replacement EQ was designed to even out a bass line. Today I record and mix Jazz and Jazz/Funk almost exclusively and bass lines have more range of fundamental notes played that the EQ can even out.

Don't get me wrong, I loved he video and your whole approach and I see how it could work well for the right tune.

Quote:

As such, people mixing on systems that are missing the fundamental range often exagerrate the boominess in a way that will not translate to wide range systems, especially to clubs and cars with subwoofers. The solution: Mix and master with the widest-range system possible.

In fact, to make a demonstration video whose point could be understood, I had to artificially produce a boomy recording with a boom frequency that might be audible on even some computer systems. Still, there are many playback systems, including my Macbook Pro, where the artificially high boom frequency that I demonstrated (124 Hz) is not even audible as a problem!
It actually sounded a bit "enhanced" to me, but I wasn't going to say anything. It's still a great video, and I played it to my mastering students today and suggested that they get your text if they really wanted to develop as a mastering engineer.

Take Care

Bob Dennis
Old 21st January 2009
  #12
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cellotron View Post
Important to note that the typical 60's Motown bass sound (as done by the amazing James Jamerson & Bob Babbit) - with Precision bass played fingerstyle with relatively dead strings feeding a custom DI going to tape - is definitely not always typical of bass sounds that are found on recording these days.

Best regards,
Steve Berson
Very true

Bob
Old 21st January 2009
  #13
Lives for gear
 
Waltz Mastering's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Motown for it's time, was the envy of just about every label here and across the pond. They were historically known for getting the bass louder and to translate better than just about anyone else on vinyl. They must have been doing something right.

TW
Old 21st January 2009
  #14
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Waltz Mastering View Post
Motown for it's time, was the envy of just about every label here and across the pond. They were historically known for getting the bass louder and to translate better than just about anyone else on vinyl. They must have been doing something right.

TW
Thanks
Bob
Old 21st January 2009
  #15
Registered User
 

Great thread...this is reinforcing something I've been tending to for a while, however the octave boost is new to me but makes total sense...I'm just about to try this...the other thing that's been bugging the **** out of me is what is commonly called low end build up in digital mixes...I think hitting tape tends to smooth this area (80 -170ish) out automatically...so it's almost like it's twice the work to get a great bass heavy mix going digitally..thanks for the thoughts

Nick
Old 21st January 2009
  #16
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdisc View Post

It actually sounded a bit "enhanced" to me, but I wasn't going to say anything.

Take Care

Bob Dennis
Yup, it was an artificial construct, artificially boosted at 124 Hz to get a point across. Bet you didn't know there was a resonancy requirement :-)

I've pulled out my trusty harmonica and pitch chart many times in mastering sessions to find the note fastest!

The Q of 12 seems to work and be pretty darn selective. It's a bandwidth of .1202 octaves according to

Q factor bandwidth per octave filter conversion and converter - quality factor Q to bandwidth in octaves and vice versa convert filter BW - sengpielaudio

which is between a 1/2 and a full step and could get us into trouble if the bass player plays accidentals. Then again it could be a real optimum bandwidth, gotta listen anyway!

BK
Old 21st January 2009
  #17
Motown legend
 
Bob Olhsson's Avatar
 

Verified Member
Bob Dennis was my first boss at Motown!

I went off to California and became a "hippie" while Bob left four years earlier to build and run a studio for Motown superstar producers Holland Dozier and Holland. This was followed by starting Detroit's leading studio and mastering facility. He had a huge hand in building the Motown facility as well as doing all of Motown's cutting for the first five or six years.

It's a real treat for me to see him here!
Old 21st January 2009
  #18
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickynicknick View Post
Great thread...this is reinforcing something I've been tending to for a while, however the octave boost is new to me but makes total sense...I'm just about to try this...the other thing that's been bugging the **** out of me is what is commonly called low end build up in digital mixes...I think hitting tape tends to smooth this area (80 -170ish) out automatically...so it's almost like it's twice the work to get a great bass heavy mix going digitally..thanks for the thoughts

Nick
Hi Nick,

Boy, you are so right about this, but thank God for discrete use of multiband compression - almost makes digital fun.

Take Care

Bob Dennis.
Old 21st January 2009
  #19
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson View Post
Bob Dennis was my first boss at Motown!

I went off to California and became a "hippie" while Bob left four years earlier to build and run a studio for Motown superstar producers Holland Dozier and Holland. This was followed by starting Detroit's leading studio and mastering facility. He had a huge hand in building the Motown facility as well as doing all of Motown's cutting for the first five or six years.

It's a real treat for me to see him here!
Hi Bob,

Been a long time... Thanks for the kudos

I'm back to mastering and having fun teaching it to eager minds.

If you ever get back to arctic Detroit, let's do lunch.

Take Care

Bob Dennis
Superdisc Mastering Home
Old 21st January 2009
  #20
Gear addict
 

Glad to see someone reference that video! It has helped me a good deal since I first saw it not too long ago!

You know, it sounds silly probably but before seeing that video, for whatever reason, I never realized that the EQ spectrum was actually a representation of pitches!!! Really, tt just never occurred to me. And I have studied music and have B.M. in classical music composition and piano performance so it seems weird to me that I never made this connection after getting into record production. I just naively looked at EQ as manipulating things to sound more trebly or more bassy and never really thought about why it's possible to even use an EQ to do that in the first place.

Using that technique that Mr. Katz demonstrates where you find a frequency/pitch that is unwanted and make an appropriate EQ cut I have been able to remove all kinds of nastiness from my tracks and mixes! A great example is a current project where I have several drum tracks recorded in a studio and the assistant did not tune exactly the snare or the rack tom to pitches sympathetic to the key of the song (my fault really for not being more demanding really.) Now that I know that the EQ spectrum is just a horizontal representation of the range of pitches, like on the piano for instance, I can easily remove any pitch that I do not want. I just determine the pitch or partial coming from the snare for example, tell if it's a D5 or an A#3 or whatever, look at a pitch > frequency mapping and make a cut at the right spot. And it obviously works both ways if there is a particular pitch/partial that you want to exploit for color etc.

Sorry for the kinda off topic post but I just wanted the chance to thank Mr. Katz for that video demonstration.



Is this technique in the Tips & Techniques section by the way?
Old 21st January 2009
  #21
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Liszt View Post

Is this technique in the Tips & Techniques section by the way?
Thanks for the reply. I just joined and am still looking around for where to find things, so no.

Take Care

Bob Dennis
Old 21st January 2009
  #22
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdisc View Post
Thanks for the reply. I just joined and am still looking around for where to find things, so no.

Take Care

Bob Dennis
Let me echo Bob Olhsson's welcome and say it's great to see you here, Bob Dennis. Did you know that every Tom, Dick, and Harry is named Bob?
Old 22nd January 2009
  #23
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob katz View Post
Let me echo Bob Olhsson's welcome and say it's great to see you here, Bob Dennis. Did you know that every Tom, Dick, and Harry is named Bob?
Thanks - This is an extremely active board.

"Bob" fuuck
Old 23rd January 2009
  #24
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdisc View Post
I viewed the Bob Katz video on bass Frequency Surgery and found it highly interesting. It's a new name for me but I have always handled this problem quite differently

Use of Octave Replacement EQ in mixing tends to make the bass line more even and sound louder.

(end insert)

Although it talks about "mixing" it is also a mastering technique I use.

I could help but wonder if the bass line Bob EQ'd would have responded to a similar EQ. Any thoughts?

Bob Dennis
An 'Octave Replacement' for Bass eq is probably doing nothing different than a bass compressor already does and IMHO may actually not be needed. I am always apprehensive about 'adding' anything to a mix at the mastering stage, especially if there is no need for it. If it's mixing however, having the client and the bass player at the session to ask them if they think the sound of the bass is 'alright', it's a different story. But, we are talking mastering here. With a bass compressor though, if I set it correctly, I can reduce the fundamentals of the lower register bass notes to almost match the higher. OTOH, as far as Mr. Katz video, who uses a keyboard, a Carnegie Hall chart and a linear phase eq to adjust/correct, I've been doing in essence what he does since 1992 except that I use my trusted RTA with the same type of eq and I've never once been wrong on any adjustments. That said, these two methods are the best way to get rid of a problem bass note.

Regards,
Old 24th January 2009
  #25
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
An 'Octave Replacement' for Bass eq is probably doing nothing different than a bass compressor already does and IMHO may actually not be needed. I am always apprehensive about 'adding' anything to a mix at the mastering stage, especially if there is no need for it. If it's mixing however, having the client and the bass player at the session to ask them if they think the sound of the bass is 'alright', it's a different story. But, we are talking mastering here. With a bass compressor though, if I set it correctly, I can reduce the fundamentals of the lower register bass notes to almost match the higher. OTOH, as far as Mr. Katz video, who uses a keyboard, a Carnegie Hall chart and a linear phase eq to adjust/correct, I've been doing in essence what he does since 1992 except that I use my trusted RTA with the same type of eq and I've never once been wrong on any adjustments. That said, these two methods are the best way to get rid of a problem bass note.
Regards,
Thanks for the post, but a bass compressor does something different than EQ any day. I'm not a fan of bass compression (although I use it of course). If the bass has some notes louder than other in the part I think Eq is approprate. Justy taking down the louder notes could work but often also increasing the weak upper notes works well.

This technique (and Bob Katz's for that matter) are not "cookie cutter" techniques that should always be used and parameters not modified for the job at hand as necessary.

Take Care

Bob Dennis
Old 24th January 2009
  #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdisc View Post
(e.g. 80 & 160 Hz for the key of E)
The only problem with this is that you are NOT cutting the fundamental and boosting the 1st harmonic. In your examples you are cutting the 1st harmonic and boosting the 2nd harmonic.

The low E string on a bass guitar and an upright (contra) bass is 41 Hz and it's first harmonic is 82Hz.

If we were to follow your technique we would actually need to cut somewhere between 40Hz and 60Hz and boost somewhere between 80Hz and 120Hz.
Old 24th January 2009
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Edward_Vinatea's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdisc View Post
Thanks for the post, but a bass compressor does something different than EQ any day. I'm not a fan of bass compression (although I use it of course). If the bass has some notes louder than other in the part I think Eq is approprate. Justy taking down the louder notes could work but often also increasing the weak upper notes works well.
Mr. Dennis, I am not discounting your technique as not being a useful one. I mix too and I could see an instance where I could execute your eq procedure. Having said that, I don't believe I need to in most cases, simply because as a purist - I favor compression over equalization. This statement may not make a whole lot of sense to you since a process is a process is a process, but I am into making ONLY precise and accurate adjustments to anything I master or else I don't touch anything. Yes, most of the time I recommend critical corrections at the mix stage. I give instructions to mixing engineers if need be. Your technique is most definitely something that could be tried and tested time after time in mixing, but as far as mastering goes - to me anyway - it's not something I would want to try. So, when you think about it, I've compressed the baseline at the mixing stage and finally, I've compressed the whole bottom end after I've mastered it. Providing that the kick drum is leveled correctly in relation to the mix baseline, I have effectively done all I need to do to make a mix sound 'natural', bassy and punchy enough. FWIW.

Regards,
Old 24th January 2009
  #28
Mastering
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
The only problem with this is that you are NOT cutting the fundamental and boosting the 1st harmonic. In your examples you are cutting the 1st harmonic and boosting the 2nd harmonic.

The low E string on a bass guitar and an upright (contra) bass is 41 Hz and it's first harmonic is 82Hz.

If we were to follow your technique we would actually need to cut somewhere between 40Hz and 60Hz and boost somewhere between 80Hz and 120Hz.
Just to stress that there are no rules, one time I was mastering a jazz recording and the upright bass sound was horrid. What it needed was some definition but of course it's real hard to consider adding 700 Hz (or some upper mid frequency) to a bass in an already-mixed recording! Contrary to all the "rules", the instrument opened up tremendously with a boost at 40 or 50 Hz. Instead of sounding boomy it opened up.... It was startling and totally unexpected. The producer and I are experienced engineer/producers and we were both startled. All I can think is that the ear supplied the second harmonic and it helped to fatten and (somewhat) clarify the instrument.

BK
Old 24th January 2009
  #29
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Etch-A-Sketch View Post
The only problem with this is that you are NOT cutting the fundamental and boosting the 1st harmonic. In your examples you are cutting the 1st harmonic and boosting the 2nd harmonic.

The low E string on a bass guitar and an upright (contra) bass is 41 Hz and it's first harmonic is 82Hz.

If we were to follow your technique we would actually need to cut somewhere between 40Hz and 60Hz and boost somewhere between 80Hz and 120Hz.
A quick aside: The first harmonic IS the fundamental - I think you mean 2nd harmonic.

On the bass application of octave replacement, I'm dippting around 100 (between 80-120 Hz) not the lower octave, because the bass is made to accent 100Hz. So the harmonics and any fundamental around 100 Hz are loud and could be reduced. I'm also recommending that the fundamentals and harmonics an octave up be boosted. This technique is NOT based on harmonics but the spectrum put out but the bass instrument playing.

Take Care

Bob Dennis
Old 24th January 2009
  #30
Gear nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward_Vinatea View Post
Mr. Dennis, I am not discounting your technique as not being a useful one. I mix too and I could see an instance where I could execute your eq procedure. Having said that, I don't believe I need to in most cases, simply because as a purist - I favor compression over equalization. This statement may not make a whole lot of sense to you since a process is a process is a process, but I am into making ONLY precise and accurate adjustments to anything I master or else I don't touch anything. Yes, most of the time I recommend critical corrections at the mix stage. I give instructions to mixing engineers if need be. Your technique is most definitely something that could be tried and tested time after time in mixing, but as far as mastering goes - to me anyway - it's not something I would want to try. So, when you think about it, I've compressed the baseline at the mixing stage and finally, I've compressed the whole bottom end after I've mastered it. Providing that the kick drum is leveled correctly in relation to the mix baseline, I have effectively done all I need to do to make a mix sound 'natural', bassy and punchy enough. FWIW.

Regards,
Well I say if compression works, use it.

In general, compression on the bass is not my first choice because in many instances the tone that was recorded on the bass was with an unnatural spectrum in the first place.

I'm going to talk about the acoustic double-conta bass, not the electric. I found, however, my solutions for the acoustic bass seemed to translate well to the electic bass (to my surprize).

The bass is designed to project out to an audience. You don't really start getting the natural tone of the instrument until you are micing 5 feet away. In practice, mics are placed MUCH closer to help with leakage. As you move the mic in (one foot or even closer) to the body, over the bridge over the body or the F hole in the body [is called it an f hole on a bass?] you are accentling certain frequencies. The best way to get back the natural sound of the instrument is through equalization, in my opinion.

BTW - This was the original intention of EQ - to compensate for tone variations in the recording and not occuring naturally (could be caused by what I described, phase cancellations from reflections, microphone or recording media frequency response, etc...)

It's just a viewpoint and a technique. Put it in your bag if you want and bring it out when you think it will help.

Take Care

PS:

Appling this to mastering, I find that often there is not a lot of other instrument energy in these ranges to prevent using this techique, but the bandwidth of the boost/cut often has to be changed a bit.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Diegel / Electronic Music Instruments and Electronic Music Production
20
KNZ / Gearslutz Secondhand Gear Classifieds
3
CrankyRayHanky / Mastering forum
33
charles maynes / Post Production forum
0
max cooper / So much gear, so little time
15

Forum Jump
Forum Jump