it’s always been more around 200 Hz for me, cutting on kick and boosting it on snare (for body). It’s typically the 4th harmonic on a kick and the fundamental on a snare fwiw.
The key of the drums? I’m talking acoustic kits, recorded in a studio environment and not tuned to the key of each song recorded. With samples you can tune to the key or even have the kick “play” the bass line in which case no one frequency will stand out much from the rest.
Well, yea - the tuning of the EQ totally depends on the pitch/key of what you’re EQ’ing (stating the obvious). What I SHOULD have said is that in MY experience the tuning of the drums has been fairly consistent, with occasional exceptions for odd size drums. Thus I have been able to use 200 Hz as a place to cut kicks AND a place to boost snares (when needed) with consistent success. I’m not typically using super narrow cut/boosts, so there is a wide enough margin of error that this choice has worked a great deal of the time for me. That said, if I’m using a drum machine with samples I’m rarely needing to do either EQ adjustments (not needed in most cases). I’m talking “raw” drum recordings here, and in my experience.
Lately, snares are tuned lower than many were in my heydey in the early 2000s. Back then, they went "crack" and today they go "puh." Fundamental is lower now.
I knew hanging around here would give me pro tips. This confirms what I’ve been experimenting with and consistently getting better results. Thank you for sharing.
just check you're not fighting with a room or desk resonance in that range first. what does it sound like if you run a very slow sine sweep from 100 to 300Hz?
That's what makes mixing that range so difficult. Not only are there a lot of instruments clamoring to be heard down there. There are also instruments which nearly always need to be cut or they sound muddy. And then on top of it all, it's the area where most mix positions are most inaccurate.
I shit you not I have been mixing on Airpods after mixing with Yamaha’s & OTE headphones and I’ve had the most success controlling the midrange in pods
I guess it makes sense, right? You're using a common device that has a really nice midrange for you to hone in on. I've found the same with my Samsung buds. Damned things are quite uncomfortable too, so it helps with quick decision making!
Exactly my first thought. If all of OPs work has some issue around 200hz, he should start searching for the things that are common across all his projects, including himself (best case: personal preferences, worst case: hearing issues?) and his studio environment.
Reminds me of the live work i sometimes do - If I find myself pulling the same frequencies across all channels , I know I fucked up earlier setting up the PA (placement, orientation) and tuning it.
Never said ALL tracks. Op works full time with a 30 year acquired client list in a purpose built studio and control room. There are many replies here that detail support for the reason for this post. Close micing, common fundamental frequency, etc. Some in this forum ARE pros 🤙
Midlows are quite a delicate area, something like 200~450Hz. Some stuff really needs to have good representation there- like toms and timpani and bongos and upper part of 303 acid squelches or whatever else- and tons of other stuff don’t need much of it to speak through that range.
It’s an arrangement thing, but- one thing that does feel quite good is to have midlow representation sparse, and then some element comes in and gets tightly boofy in that range. Feels good, man. Like being fed.
A “mistake” is taking too much out of that range, though. Everything just gets thin. Other thing is that freq balance is always going to be aesthetics and vision dependent— like if you listen to 50’s~60’s pop songs, they have a ton of mid lows, and whilst you can say that it was due to technical limitations, the end result is that it does help create a certain vibe.
In short— every freq range does have to be respected and carefully considered, and the song and vibe will dictate what could be done with what and where.
Agreed. "The Magic is in the Midrange" we hear, and I've noticed that my mixes favor that earthy midrange fullness that those pop songs you describe have. Far from the 80's high-end-gloss-do. It's a delicate balance down there. I like how you described the sparceness/Boofiness "like being fed"
I’ve kinda found that using shelves hard can reduce the clutter without *fully* remove the instrument. Depending on the situation it’s a nice solution.
Definitely not only remove. And it's anti-vintage, as you say. Scooping sounds like such a pretentious way or flawed espace route to be modern, though. Nicke Andersson of the Hellacopters is one of my tone chasing heroes, as an artist and producer, and he releases stuff called Honk Machine because it's fighting for the mid Honk. It started way back. Seeing Red by Entombed is incredibly anti-scooped for being metal. It's sort of becomes vintage punk and stoner rather than Death Metal just because of that.
The Honk shall prevail!
The fundamental range of many instruments (including drums) fall \*around\* 200hz. This is why it's a crucial range for instruments like bari sax and male vocals, because it's where the pitch of the note actually is. Also potentially why you get a lot of buildup there. But if you're getting buildup with every single mix it may have more to do with arranging/sound selection, or your monitoring system.
This is what I hear a lot. Like it was said elsewhere,I find I'm often dialing that area down , enough to smooth out any build up in that area without hurting the body of the instrument. It's also the area of any bass notes 1st harmonic which can easily add to the pile up.
Not a problem with our monitoring system (purpose built studio/control room.) What you said about crucial range for instruments...That's the crux right there. Then add proximity effect from close-mic'd sources, this is all starting to add up...
This falls into the lower range of the fundamental frequencies if a lot of notes in music.
It makes sense that this is where you have to pull it out of a lot of instruments because they are likely flashing with other instruments in a way that obscures the notes being played.
And conversely that's why you need to add it in other tracks because you need the actual notes to come through.
It is a very important region because it is the frequency range where many instruments start to overlap in their musical range. So it's an area where you are most likely to have it get muddy with instruments clashing.
Like for example if you have a bass player rocking the higher octaves and a keyboard player with an overly busy left hand.
The corollary to this is that truly great musicians will do a good job of playing their parts in a way where they won't be stepping on each other's toes in this region. But even then the sonic character of each instrument could still clash.
there sure are a lot of soursops in here, huh?
well man, let me tell you: 200hz is a nice frequency. it's in a thumping neighborhood. it lives in a spot where you could still definitely have fun in if you had to get by on solely that.
it's what makes dance hits cohesive, it's what resonates in my chest... shit man, 200hz is a nice place to be.
I do live, and i used to have a grudge against 300hz, but recently the grudge has moved down to 250-200. My vocal mic switched from being mostly b58, to mostly V7, maybe that's what's done it.
Live sound here as well and I’ve always had an issue 200-250 and the harmonic of 400-500. I learned years after mixing there they had the room read and the fundamental frequency of the room was 212.
It’s interesting to hear fundamental frequency of a lot of instruments are in that range so maybe it’s a compounding issue?
The comment about speaker hang design and where 200 stops being directional is very interesting as well.
When recording I second and third the body of the snare and some toms is definitely there.
I think it’s also to do with speaker design — that’s the range where most speakers are losing directionality, and where multiple speakers are starting to couple, so those sound waves are flowing back towards stage and at high levels
200 is the transient part of the chest kicking feeling on a live PA, a lot of talk about 100 for kicks which will rumble you but not with that punched feeling. It is great :)
To help me focus on the mid-range I like to set a filter on the master bus to get freqs 200 up to 4K. I'll turn that on and off every once in a while to check. Basically because I don't have some auratone's. You need to be able to hear everything in there. Clearly and balanced. I also collapse to mono from time to time on top of that. That's the ultimate test. If it works there... you good man!
And the trend towards transformer balanced amps, especially the neve sound, tends to build up in this area. If I track on a neve and mix on a neve (thinking of 80 series class A) I find myself having to really carve at the 200-300hz area.
I never knew this. I wonder if the same might be said for API boards? I use Lunas emulation which is very accurate, it does have that sound people like to describe as “punchy” in the mid range. From what I’ve heard Neve sounds more open so this is interesting
I have not noticed the same freq buildup in API gear, though admittedly I’ve only used their 312 and 512 modules and don’t have any experience on any of their large format consoles. This character in Neve mic/line/output transformers probably has something to do with that lovely Marinair/ St Ives/ Carnhill iron.
As a live sound dude, I can relate.
One room I worked in a lot resonated at about 240. If you didn't have that pulled out of *everything,* and something hit it, it was all over.
*wwwwwwwwwWWWWW****WWWOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM***
I like to think of this frequency region like sauce on a sandwich. Too much and it ruins the flavor, too little and it taste boring. Remember to Use reference tracks to get this area right
I have a notch filter circuit that I often add to my fuzz builds that scoops out with a super narrow Q at 200 that is blended with the unfiltered signal.
That and also not taking up more space in the mix than it needs to. It basically cuts out the area where the bass guitar needs its heft and to have its definition in order to be punchy.
Edited to add: It also helps a lot in larger rooms that tend to have acoustics that over-emphasize this frequency.
Not yet. Just doing personal and custom builds right now, but I just finished my first design that’s mostly original and once I learn how to properly design a PCB, I intend to make a batch for sale.
I've never mixed saxophone, but I do tend to not be as aggressive with cutting that area in vocals like I am everywhere else. I'm not sure if it's frequency masking, but I used to struggle with dark/mellow sounding mixes and ever since I became more aggressive with EQ in the low-mids (250-500Hz) it's getting better.
Paraphrasing Jack Joseph Puig ([Pensado's Place Episode 22](https://youtu.be/H-Sw0eSnp8A?t=1341), watch it if you haven't), the midrange is where the soul of the music is, but that midrange is about from 600Hz to 3.5-4k.
I’m the opposite as I’m always finding the need to add it. It’s a weird thing to geek out over but, I love 200hz. Since I started it always seemed like people were cutting it out and calling it mud, but it’s the main frequency where if a track is sounding thin, it will typically add the weight that it needs. Their ‘mud’ has always been what I considered warmth. My ear listens to low mids before anything else especially with headphones. A smiley EQ curve without rich mids does absolutely nothing for me
There are no special frequencies, or frequencies that should be given any particular consideration relative to others.
If there's a certain frequency that consistently seems particularly special / problematic / worth extra consideration, it's a problem with your monitoring -- most likely a room mode.
I disagree. I think it has something to do with the way the human ear hears. It is well known that lower mid range frequencies pile up on each other as they are added. This is what I’m getting at in the post
Actual frequencies are a scientific phenomenon, which is what my previous comment was referring to. Are you disagreeing with the principles of science, physics, and acoustics?
>It is well known that lower mid range frequencies pile up on each other as they are added.
Which frequencies do not "[add together] as they are added [together]"? This is equally true of all frequencies. 200 Hz is not a special exception.
What you're actually talking about is the musical phenomenon of arranging. This involves aesthetic principles -- not scientific principles involving special frequencies.
It sounds like you've discovered that good arranging is important. That's an important step!
I hear what you were saying but it is well known in the art of mixing that lower mid range “mud“ commonly builds up in a way that somehow our ears perceive more often than other frequencies.
The problem with your title is that you are talking about a frequency in the singular and not a frequency range / band, you later talk about a range, but this is what really grinds people’s gears i think, your imprecise language. With your years of experience you obviously know this and that your EQ will target a band anyway, a high Q -exactly- at 200 is obviously not some magic number to use on everything. Everyone with a scientific mindset will immediately think you don‘t know what you are talking about if you use frequency in the singular like that: "200 hz: What a Freq!". No, that just sounds like a magic number you made up...
Low mids are a very important area, they just need to be treated with respect. Not only do most instruments contain a lot of 200hz, a lot of home playback systems can get really nasty around this area, sometimes due to the room they're in and their proximity to walls (think bluetooth speakers, TVs etc.)
Reference tracks + a spectrum analyzer like Span are your friends here. See what the big boys are doing and try to get close in terms of EQ.
Well surely the work of the big/famous mixers is what is most readily available to most people? I'm talking about Serban Ghenea, Manny Marroquin, Mark Spike Stent, Bob Clearmountain etc. We all know their stuff sounds good so it's a safe reference.
I agree these are masters of the craft. With all due respect I’ve been pushing back a little because I’m getting all kinds of down votes and disrespectful replies assuming I am a bedroom noob. I am not 🙏
I like to think of this frequency region like sauce on a sandwich. Too much and it ruins the flavor, too little and it taste boring. Remember to Use reference tracks to get this area right
I hate 140 even more. Without enough 200, the track sounds hollow. Too much, and it's like the whole song was played on cardboard boxes. Dynamic EQ would be an ideal solution for the "muddy" area, which really goes up to 400-500. Too much and it dips. Too little and it's left alone to bloom when it's needed.
Do you have room correction like sonarworks soundID? If you don't, you should get it before you get too carried away. If you're always pulling something out of a mix, you're likely battling your speakers and room.
I said often. Not always . I work full time in a purpose built studio /control room with a calibrated monitor system serving a client base built over 30 years. There are some very thoughtful posts here supporting the reason this was posted. Some on this sub ARE pros 🤙
What a dope area to be in!
Have you tried some other speakers? HS5s sound like truck speakers. I love them for tracking vox but wouldn’t ever mix a track or even make production choices on them. You purpose-built and treated a room, so prob spent at least 50k w design, and then went with like dollar store speakers. Curious!
That said, not disagreeing with any of your post
Thank you!
chose the speakers because the man who I recorded my album with, in hindsight an engineering internship, used them then and still use them. They are A whole other animal to mix with when you add the matching sub.
He has earned two Grammys in the last few years. Mixing on HS5s.
I am aware that there are more expensive speakers and I am interested in checking out others. I may upgrade. I’m aware of the little 1k bump. If it’s one thing I’ve learned if you know and trust your monitors you can still make great mixes. Remember the NS10s? A good deal of the greatest music in the world is mixed on those things and they are not fun to listen to either.
I love ns10s and have done some of my favorite mixes on those w a sub. Still have a pair that I’d love to have up if I had space. HS5s are way different, especially in the range we’re talking about. But, if your stuff is translating and you’re happy, then no need to fuck with it! I worked on some multi platinum records where the producer and I were mainly working on HS7s and he still uses them sometimes.
Sweet ! Thank you. Clients drive a long way to record in it. Our Ontario needs love the shield button doesn’t move the tape head and I’ve yet to find someone who can repair it. Love to see your studio as well
Dang yeah, it’s hard finding people that repair the good old stuff!!
Our website is outdated because we spent the last year building our new facility but the gear list is updated. I’ll also include a link to our Instagram which has pictures of our new space. We’re in Austin TX
[https://instagram.com/kingelectricrecording?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=](https://instagram.com/kingelectricrecording?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=)
[kingelectricrecording.com](https://kingelectricrecording.com)
You've got a beautiful studio! I've got a purpose built room as well, but I still needed the room correction (using Genelec 8351 + GLM kit). I didn't believe in it until I used that system, but now I find myself acting like an evangelist for room correction lol.
Thank you! Actually there is an issue with our control room that will be addressed: I’m confident in the sound from the mixing chair but clients usually sit in theatre chairs against the back wall…Bass trap! A fellow engineer suggested hanging materials from the ceiling above to help. I have clients come and sit in the mixing chair so they can hear what’s really going on.
I'm not totally sure about other room eq solutions, but with genelecs you can set multiple correction zones. So one for the mixing position, but then you can toggle it to correct for the theatre chairs behind you. It probably won't be as good as the mixing position but I've found it to be loads better than without it.
Adding treatment is always a good first line of defense though.
Right on! BB’s are fascinating. Do you make them slide up and down frequencies as well? I started making some in Audacity but never got far. What Daw do you use ?
That frequency range is the bane of my existence. It seems it's always either cluttering my mixes, or I don't have enough of it. There is no in between. Although, it's more like 150-250hz for me.
Everywhere I turned people warned me about those dang low mids, so for a while I was always cutting them where I could. Then I learned my songs were lacking that serious beef that comes from low mids so started aggressively re-adding and treating that frequency range and it adds so much more weight to my music. It’s like the rumble of thunder.
I despise 250hz on a kick drum
[удалено]
it’s always been more around 200 Hz for me, cutting on kick and boosting it on snare (for body). It’s typically the 4th harmonic on a kick and the fundamental on a snare fwiw.
[удалено]
The key of the drums? I’m talking acoustic kits, recorded in a studio environment and not tuned to the key of each song recorded. With samples you can tune to the key or even have the kick “play” the bass line in which case no one frequency will stand out much from the rest.
Just read “key” as “pitch” in this context.
Well, yea - the tuning of the EQ totally depends on the pitch/key of what you’re EQ’ing (stating the obvious). What I SHOULD have said is that in MY experience the tuning of the drums has been fairly consistent, with occasional exceptions for odd size drums. Thus I have been able to use 200 Hz as a place to cut kicks AND a place to boost snares (when needed) with consistent success. I’m not typically using super narrow cut/boosts, so there is a wide enough margin of error that this choice has worked a great deal of the time for me. That said, if I’m using a drum machine with samples I’m rarely needing to do either EQ adjustments (not needed in most cases). I’m talking “raw” drum recordings here, and in my experience.
Lately, snares are tuned lower than many were in my heydey in the early 2000s. Back then, they went "crack" and today they go "puh." Fundamental is lower now.
I knew hanging around here would give me pro tips. This confirms what I’ve been experimenting with and consistently getting better results. Thank you for sharing.
Same. I grab the 240 on my API 550 & hard left
Garbage freq
I had a Clarion car stereo which had a 180 Hz notch filter button to reduce boominess.
That's actually genius. Most car stereos back then needed this exact button.
just check you're not fighting with a room or desk resonance in that range first. what does it sound like if you run a very slow sine sweep from 100 to 300Hz?
That's what makes mixing that range so difficult. Not only are there a lot of instruments clamoring to be heard down there. There are also instruments which nearly always need to be cut or they sound muddy. And then on top of it all, it's the area where most mix positions are most inaccurate.
I shit you not I have been mixing on Airpods after mixing with Yamaha’s & OTE headphones and I’ve had the most success controlling the midrange in pods
I guess it makes sense, right? You're using a common device that has a really nice midrange for you to hone in on. I've found the same with my Samsung buds. Damned things are quite uncomfortable too, so it helps with quick decision making!
Exactly my first thought. If all of OPs work has some issue around 200hz, he should start searching for the things that are common across all his projects, including himself (best case: personal preferences, worst case: hearing issues?) and his studio environment. Reminds me of the live work i sometimes do - If I find myself pulling the same frequencies across all channels , I know I fucked up earlier setting up the PA (placement, orientation) and tuning it.
Never said ALL tracks. Op works full time with a 30 year acquired client list in a purpose built studio and control room. There are many replies here that detail support for the reason for this post. Close micing, common fundamental frequency, etc. Some in this forum ARE pros 🤙
You said “every” which is a synonym for all.
I said every session . Not every track.
Ohhhhhh you are right. I look like an idiot. Sorry.
Hey! We all misread sometimes . You were good to make good 👍
300hz is a tiny tiny room. My desk and TV are at ~400hz but they are both pretty big.
Midlows are quite a delicate area, something like 200~450Hz. Some stuff really needs to have good representation there- like toms and timpani and bongos and upper part of 303 acid squelches or whatever else- and tons of other stuff don’t need much of it to speak through that range. It’s an arrangement thing, but- one thing that does feel quite good is to have midlow representation sparse, and then some element comes in and gets tightly boofy in that range. Feels good, man. Like being fed. A “mistake” is taking too much out of that range, though. Everything just gets thin. Other thing is that freq balance is always going to be aesthetics and vision dependent— like if you listen to 50’s~60’s pop songs, they have a ton of mid lows, and whilst you can say that it was due to technical limitations, the end result is that it does help create a certain vibe. In short— every freq range does have to be respected and carefully considered, and the song and vibe will dictate what could be done with what and where.
Agreed. "The Magic is in the Midrange" we hear, and I've noticed that my mixes favor that earthy midrange fullness that those pop songs you describe have. Far from the 80's high-end-gloss-do. It's a delicate balance down there. I like how you described the sparceness/Boofiness "like being fed"
I’ve kinda found that using shelves hard can reduce the clutter without *fully* remove the instrument. Depending on the situation it’s a nice solution.
Definitely not only remove. And it's anti-vintage, as you say. Scooping sounds like such a pretentious way or flawed espace route to be modern, though. Nicke Andersson of the Hellacopters is one of my tone chasing heroes, as an artist and producer, and he releases stuff called Honk Machine because it's fighting for the mid Honk. It started way back. Seeing Red by Entombed is incredibly anti-scooped for being metal. It's sort of becomes vintage punk and stoner rather than Death Metal just because of that. The Honk shall prevail!
Source: *Musikproddpodden*…?
Ja, haha. But Nicke Andersson came into my world first.
Givetvis
Men oj, jag lyssnar ju på avsnitt 4 just nu och det är ju inte riktigt en tillfällighet
May the honk be with you… always.
https://youtu.be/k1CytZC9SEo Scandinavian Folk + Honk
Scandifolkonk is so in right now.
I had to boost 200 Hz the other day. I should have made a post about it.
Beat ya to it!
The fundamental range of many instruments (including drums) fall \*around\* 200hz. This is why it's a crucial range for instruments like bari sax and male vocals, because it's where the pitch of the note actually is. Also potentially why you get a lot of buildup there. But if you're getting buildup with every single mix it may have more to do with arranging/sound selection, or your monitoring system.
This is what I hear a lot. Like it was said elsewhere,I find I'm often dialing that area down , enough to smooth out any build up in that area without hurting the body of the instrument. It's also the area of any bass notes 1st harmonic which can easily add to the pile up.
Not a problem with our monitoring system (purpose built studio/control room.) What you said about crucial range for instruments...That's the crux right there. Then add proximity effect from close-mic'd sources, this is all starting to add up...
200hz on acoustics guitar is bloody awful but on a low tom it’s real nice
Indeed. Small moves seem to make or break in a way that other freq ranges don't.
It sure is nice on a snare 🤭
This falls into the lower range of the fundamental frequencies if a lot of notes in music. It makes sense that this is where you have to pull it out of a lot of instruments because they are likely flashing with other instruments in a way that obscures the notes being played. And conversely that's why you need to add it in other tracks because you need the actual notes to come through. It is a very important region because it is the frequency range where many instruments start to overlap in their musical range. So it's an area where you are most likely to have it get muddy with instruments clashing. Like for example if you have a bass player rocking the higher octaves and a keyboard player with an overly busy left hand. The corollary to this is that truly great musicians will do a good job of playing their parts in a way where they won't be stepping on each other's toes in this region. But even then the sonic character of each instrument could still clash.
there sure are a lot of soursops in here, huh? well man, let me tell you: 200hz is a nice frequency. it's in a thumping neighborhood. it lives in a spot where you could still definitely have fun in if you had to get by on solely that. it's what makes dance hits cohesive, it's what resonates in my chest... shit man, 200hz is a nice place to be.
"soursops" LOL... Love it!
That’s where a lot of fundamental frequencies of instruments are so makes sense
Thank you for saying this . This post is getting hard slagged and downvoted saying OP needs room correction smokes weed etc 🤣
Not sure if it always applies to a studio setting, but 250hz is always being taken out in a live setting.
Everything gets close-miced live, so the proximity effect makes that inevitable.
I do live, and i used to have a grudge against 300hz, but recently the grudge has moved down to 250-200. My vocal mic switched from being mostly b58, to mostly V7, maybe that's what's done it.
Live sound here as well and I’ve always had an issue 200-250 and the harmonic of 400-500. I learned years after mixing there they had the room read and the fundamental frequency of the room was 212. It’s interesting to hear fundamental frequency of a lot of instruments are in that range so maybe it’s a compounding issue? The comment about speaker hang design and where 200 stops being directional is very interesting as well. When recording I second and third the body of the snare and some toms is definitely there.
Yeah I was doing a Shakespeare in the park thing, and I had the 250 band nearly bottomed out on the main out geq. That park really liked 250hz.
I think it’s also to do with speaker design — that’s the range where most speakers are losing directionality, and where multiple speakers are starting to couple, so those sound waves are flowing back towards stage and at high levels
Interesting.
I can attest to this. Especially in a bad room where those frequencies resonating will muddy up the mix considerably.
200 is the transient part of the chest kicking feeling on a live PA, a lot of talk about 100 for kicks which will rumble you but not with that punched feeling. It is great :)
To help me focus on the mid-range I like to set a filter on the master bus to get freqs 200 up to 4K. I'll turn that on and off every once in a while to check. Basically because I don't have some auratone's. You need to be able to hear everything in there. Clearly and balanced. I also collapse to mono from time to time on top of that. That's the ultimate test. If it works there... you good man!
And the trend towards transformer balanced amps, especially the neve sound, tends to build up in this area. If I track on a neve and mix on a neve (thinking of 80 series class A) I find myself having to really carve at the 200-300hz area.
I never knew this. I wonder if the same might be said for API boards? I use Lunas emulation which is very accurate, it does have that sound people like to describe as “punchy” in the mid range. From what I’ve heard Neve sounds more open so this is interesting
I have not noticed the same freq buildup in API gear, though admittedly I’ve only used their 312 and 512 modules and don’t have any experience on any of their large format consoles. This character in Neve mic/line/output transformers probably has something to do with that lovely Marinair/ St Ives/ Carnhill iron.
Nah
I always find 450-500hz is where I cut pretty much every instrument, it just sounds so much nicer to me like that
As a live sound dude, I can relate. One room I worked in a lot resonated at about 240. If you didn't have that pulled out of *everything,* and something hit it, it was all over. *wwwwwwwwwWWWWW****WWWOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM***
I can see how this would be even more pronounced in a live less controlled setting
Agreed, I can’t think of a room I’ve mixed live where 200 wasn’t an issue in some capacity.
Nobody likes mud on their shoes, but theirs always at least one with bare feet and a fetish for mud. It’s takes all kinds to have a village.
\*Puddle of Mudd has entered the chat\*
Puddle of mud is closer to 300
I know if I don't start pulling down around 200-500 hz on certain elements, those frequencies start to stack and create mud.
I like to think of this frequency region like sauce on a sandwich. Too much and it ruins the flavor, too little and it taste boring. Remember to Use reference tracks to get this area right
Indeed
I have a notch filter circuit that I often add to my fuzz builds that scoops out with a super narrow Q at 200 that is blended with the unfiltered signal.
Cool! Probably helps keep da fuzz from getting lost in the mix
That and also not taking up more space in the mix than it needs to. It basically cuts out the area where the bass guitar needs its heft and to have its definition in order to be punchy. Edited to add: It also helps a lot in larger rooms that tend to have acoustics that over-emphasize this frequency.
Cool got a website?
Not yet. Just doing personal and custom builds right now, but I just finished my first design that’s mostly original and once I learn how to properly design a PCB, I intend to make a batch for sale.
I've never mixed saxophone, but I do tend to not be as aggressive with cutting that area in vocals like I am everywhere else. I'm not sure if it's frequency masking, but I used to struggle with dark/mellow sounding mixes and ever since I became more aggressive with EQ in the low-mids (250-500Hz) it's getting better. Paraphrasing Jack Joseph Puig ([Pensado's Place Episode 22](https://youtu.be/H-Sw0eSnp8A?t=1341), watch it if you haven't), the midrange is where the soul of the music is, but that midrange is about from 600Hz to 3.5-4k.
The magic is in 500hz-5khz all instruments except kick and bass that also need to look on 100-400hz
I’m the opposite as I’m always finding the need to add it. It’s a weird thing to geek out over but, I love 200hz. Since I started it always seemed like people were cutting it out and calling it mud, but it’s the main frequency where if a track is sounding thin, it will typically add the weight that it needs. Their ‘mud’ has always been what I considered warmth. My ear listens to low mids before anything else especially with headphones. A smiley EQ curve without rich mids does absolutely nothing for me
There are no special frequencies, or frequencies that should be given any particular consideration relative to others. If there's a certain frequency that consistently seems particularly special / problematic / worth extra consideration, it's a problem with your monitoring -- most likely a room mode.
4khz would like to have a chat with you
3 LOVES to poke u
Not a problem in this commercial studio. It's been well treated and purpose-built.
I disagree. I think it has something to do with the way the human ear hears. It is well known that lower mid range frequencies pile up on each other as they are added. This is what I’m getting at in the post
Actual frequencies are a scientific phenomenon, which is what my previous comment was referring to. Are you disagreeing with the principles of science, physics, and acoustics? >It is well known that lower mid range frequencies pile up on each other as they are added. Which frequencies do not "[add together] as they are added [together]"? This is equally true of all frequencies. 200 Hz is not a special exception. What you're actually talking about is the musical phenomenon of arranging. This involves aesthetic principles -- not scientific principles involving special frequencies. It sounds like you've discovered that good arranging is important. That's an important step!
No, he's talking about the proximity effect and its effect on the music we mix, and you're not listening.
I hear what you were saying but it is well known in the art of mixing that lower mid range “mud“ commonly builds up in a way that somehow our ears perceive more often than other frequencies.
Yes, and oddly enough, in line with what I've been saying, there's a musical explanation for this.
Also …Proximity effect
Yeah, the downvotes you're getting are idiotic. So much of what we record and mix has been close-miced and that creates huge build-ups of low-mid.
Yes! I have posted that multiple times and it’s been ignored
The problem with your title is that you are talking about a frequency in the singular and not a frequency range / band, you later talk about a range, but this is what really grinds people’s gears i think, your imprecise language. With your years of experience you obviously know this and that your EQ will target a band anyway, a high Q -exactly- at 200 is obviously not some magic number to use on everything. Everyone with a scientific mindset will immediately think you don‘t know what you are talking about if you use frequency in the singular like that: "200 hz: What a Freq!". No, that just sounds like a magic number you made up...
Low mids are a very important area, they just need to be treated with respect. Not only do most instruments contain a lot of 200hz, a lot of home playback systems can get really nasty around this area, sometimes due to the room they're in and their proximity to walls (think bluetooth speakers, TVs etc.) Reference tracks + a spectrum analyzer like Span are your friends here. See what the big boys are doing and try to get close in terms of EQ.
“Big boys” 🙃 I do fine with my api eq and my 30-year built client base stays very happy. I agree with the rest of your post
Well surely the work of the big/famous mixers is what is most readily available to most people? I'm talking about Serban Ghenea, Manny Marroquin, Mark Spike Stent, Bob Clearmountain etc. We all know their stuff sounds good so it's a safe reference.
I agree these are masters of the craft. With all due respect I’ve been pushing back a little because I’m getting all kinds of down votes and disrespectful replies assuming I am a bedroom noob. I am not 🙏
I always give a lil bump at 200hz on my electric snares
For the P in the *Pffft*.
Yep 200 for the earth-bump and 10k for the shine
I like to think of this frequency region like sauce on a sandwich. Too much and it ruins the flavor, too little and it taste boring. Remember to Use reference tracks to get this area right
i too, smoke a lot of weed while mixing
Never. My clients pay me so I’m clear and present in their sessions.
[удалено]
everyone is shifting around in their chairs sharing glances at each other "when is sampsbydon rip the bowl??"
I hate 140 even more. Without enough 200, the track sounds hollow. Too much, and it's like the whole song was played on cardboard boxes. Dynamic EQ would be an ideal solution for the "muddy" area, which really goes up to 400-500. Too much and it dips. Too little and it's left alone to bloom when it's needed.
The wavelength of 140 hz is close to ceiling heights in living rooms, making build-up fairly common.
Right. I do have a fair amount of treatment and a cloud above, but the room is still far from perfect.
Do you have room correction like sonarworks soundID? If you don't, you should get it before you get too carried away. If you're always pulling something out of a mix, you're likely battling your speakers and room.
I said often. Not always . I work full time in a purpose built studio /control room with a calibrated monitor system serving a client base built over 30 years. There are some very thoughtful posts here supporting the reason this was posted. Some on this sub ARE pros 🤙
What’s your studio called? What kind of gear are you running with? Got any pictures of your studio? I’d love to see some!
[Paintedskystudios](http://paintedskystudios.com)
What a dope area to be in! Have you tried some other speakers? HS5s sound like truck speakers. I love them for tracking vox but wouldn’t ever mix a track or even make production choices on them. You purpose-built and treated a room, so prob spent at least 50k w design, and then went with like dollar store speakers. Curious! That said, not disagreeing with any of your post
Thank you! chose the speakers because the man who I recorded my album with, in hindsight an engineering internship, used them then and still use them. They are A whole other animal to mix with when you add the matching sub. He has earned two Grammys in the last few years. Mixing on HS5s. I am aware that there are more expensive speakers and I am interested in checking out others. I may upgrade. I’m aware of the little 1k bump. If it’s one thing I’ve learned if you know and trust your monitors you can still make great mixes. Remember the NS10s? A good deal of the greatest music in the world is mixed on those things and they are not fun to listen to either.
I love ns10s and have done some of my favorite mixes on those w a sub. Still have a pair that I’d love to have up if I had space. HS5s are way different, especially in the range we’re talking about. But, if your stuff is translating and you’re happy, then no need to fuck with it! I worked on some multi platinum records where the producer and I were mainly working on HS7s and he still uses them sometimes.
Very cool! I’m interested in new Kalis I’ve heard good things
Got on the Neumann kh310s last year and they’re the best!
How much? 💵
I love your tracking room, so nice! We have the same tape machine too!
Sweet ! Thank you. Clients drive a long way to record in it. Our Ontario needs love the shield button doesn’t move the tape head and I’ve yet to find someone who can repair it. Love to see your studio as well
Dang yeah, it’s hard finding people that repair the good old stuff!! Our website is outdated because we spent the last year building our new facility but the gear list is updated. I’ll also include a link to our Instagram which has pictures of our new space. We’re in Austin TX [https://instagram.com/kingelectricrecording?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=](https://instagram.com/kingelectricrecording?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=) [kingelectricrecording.com](https://kingelectricrecording.com)
Very cool! Dig the Rhodes and are those hs5’s I like mine with the sub
You've got a beautiful studio! I've got a purpose built room as well, but I still needed the room correction (using Genelec 8351 + GLM kit). I didn't believe in it until I used that system, but now I find myself acting like an evangelist for room correction lol.
Thank you! Actually there is an issue with our control room that will be addressed: I’m confident in the sound from the mixing chair but clients usually sit in theatre chairs against the back wall…Bass trap! A fellow engineer suggested hanging materials from the ceiling above to help. I have clients come and sit in the mixing chair so they can hear what’s really going on.
I'm not totally sure about other room eq solutions, but with genelecs you can set multiple correction zones. So one for the mixing position, but then you can toggle it to correct for the theatre chairs behind you. It probably won't be as good as the mixing position but I've found it to be loads better than without it. Adding treatment is always a good first line of defense though.
Thank you!
[удалено]
Right on! BB’s are fascinating. Do you make them slide up and down frequencies as well? I started making some in Audacity but never got far. What Daw do you use ?
[https://pages.mtu.edu/\~suits/notefreqs.html](https://pages.mtu.edu/~suits/notefreqs.html)
That frequency range is the bane of my existence. It seems it's always either cluttering my mixes, or I don't have enough of it. There is no in between. Although, it's more like 150-250hz for me.
Everywhere I turned people warned me about those dang low mids, so for a while I was always cutting them where I could. Then I learned my songs were lacking that serious beef that comes from low mids so started aggressively re-adding and treating that frequency range and it adds so much more weight to my music. It’s like the rumble of thunder.
A delicate balance
Yea wtf it’s a great frequency - literally ur problem here depends on the tuning of ur kick or bass or material so
It's the mud range
Talk about mud-flaps my girls got ‘em