EQ strategy for the 100-500 hz range?

Do you have any strategies or workflows for EQ'ing this particular range? Maybe you have a particular order in which you prefer to EQ different instruments?

It feels like it's life or death down there in the fundamentals of everything and it seems I'm constantly bordering on sucking the warmth, tone and life out of it all!

I usually do drums, electric bass, two dubbed electric guitars, some piano and keyboards and vocals (lots of BG vocals too) in the rock/indie vein.

I pay attention to panning, hipass filters and arrangement, but I guess I'm still too much of an amateur to not get nervous around that frequency range

Any thoughts are much appreciated!

Well, first of all, from my point of view, 100 to 500Hz it's a remarkably wide range... 100 to 300Hz have a lot to do with warmth, body and roundness (that may easily become muddiness), while the more you move towards 400-500Hz, the more you start to deal with clarity and definition, and when it is too much it translates into a classic "honky" sound (very often a cut around 4-500Hz is useful to reduce the "carboard" feeling from drums, for example).
So, my first suggestion for you is to split that range at least into two distinct areas, and to work separately on them. Sometimes you may work equalizing these two areas in a complementary way, for example, on a bass guitar, a little cut around 200Hz and a boost at 400Hz may help to increase punch and intelligibility.
The topic, anyway, is very extensive

Some good tips up there Fonderie It is really is impossible to say what is needing to be EQed in that range without having all the pieces together. It depends on so many factors, but there are some starting points as mentioned above. 200~300Hz is a build up zone in general.

Don't forget, if something is sounding a little too "muddy" (too much low mids) instead of cutting that region (and possibly making it thin sounding), you could always boost it's opposite to shift our attention; by adding presence you "fix" the muddy sounding "issue" but keep the low-mid power. So sometimes doing the opposite is what's needed! Really depends on the context and desired end result!

Here are two resources that helped me out greatly (and I still reference today):

Interactive Frequency Chart (learn where each instrument generates it's fundamentals and harmonics and what frequency range they occupy):
Interactive Frequency Chart - Independent Recording Network

A Sound-Quality Glossary by Bruce Bartlett (learn to put frequencies to common audio terminology, what frequencies dictate a muddy sound, what is crisp, what are warm frequencies...):
A Sound-Quality Glossary Bruce Bartlett | Audio Undone


Example for Bass:




Frequency Ranges (ISO 1/3rd Octave Bands)

thanks for the links Dan!

My pleasure to share. These are good resources

DanButsu said:

Don't forget, if something is sounding a little too "muddy" (too much low mids) instead of cutting that region (and possibly making it thin sounding), you could always boost it's opposite to shift our attention; by adding presence you "fix" the muddy sounding "issue" but keep the low-mid power. So sometimes doing the opposite is what's needed! Really depends on the context and desired end result!

Click to expand...

Wow! thanks for those links. I'm pinning that page to my browser, from now on!

In regards to raising emphasis on the opposite frequencies instead of cutting. I think the UAD/Softube Tonelux Tilt is fantastic for that. It can emphasize and de-emphasize at the same time. I even used it on a mix recently where it just felt like it need to be tilted towards more high mids, and highs, but the lows and mid low end frequencies felt balanced (not muddy) and it did a great job.

A great thing about that chart is it emphasizes how much can change in a narrow range of lower frequencies. Like FonderieFoniche said, 100Hz to 500Hz is a remarkably wide range.

FWIW, BAX and Massenberg are excellent for handling low cuts and shelves. I'd recommend staying away from most older UAD plugins for those duties. The Pultec trick of simultaneously boosting and cutting works great with many EQ's, particularly BAX.

I don't have the mixing expertise of many of you but I find when I think about 100-500, its like there are specific problems and or opportunities almost within each 50-100 cycles ? The first more obvious one being kick and bass ?

FonderieFoniche said:

Well, first of all, from my point of view, 100 to 500Hz it's a remarkably wide range...

Click to expand...

Fonderie,

Thanks for your reply, that's sound advice (pun intended). I didn't perceive it as a wide range, but thinking about about it your point of view makes nothing but sense.

I'll be splitting up the range in two from here and pay attention to the complementary-ness (is that even a word?) of octaves across the two.

DanButsu said:

.. sometimes doing the opposite is what's needed!

Click to expand...

DanButsu,

The 'attention shifting' is good advice, thanks My mind is almost automatically in subtractive EQ mode, but it's a newly acquired habit so I should be able to shake it easily.

Yes, I guess the image of pieces of this theoretical EQ puzzle is very blurred and ridden with multiple problem factors.

I suspect that the guitars, keys and vocals is my main challenge all three being full-freq, but not least also because I find it hard to EQ my own voice, you know, determining how it sounds 'naturally' outside my own head.

Thanks for links, I find the glossary especially interesting, it's quite deep! Language, metaphors, subjectvity, electricity moving air in different spaces, wildly different auditory systems, moods, emotions. Argh! Good I now have an even more narrow 200-300hz range to focus on

I feel it, I feel ya De Pep. One thing that will help you out is to mix on mid-range single driver speakers like the venerable Auratones or modern iterations such as Avantones. They help you focus in on the mid-range only, and that's where the money is

[ESPRESSO RANT]
Start on the "big" speakers at a good volume, like 80~85dBSPL (slow response C-weighted) and get the tone and vibe right for all the pieces. You can set up basic effects as inspiration hits you, do some tonal shaping with saturation, distortion and some basic tonal shaping here, but move fast and musically. Then drop down to the "Auratones" at low levels, like ~70dBSPL (one speaker in mono if you can) and do fader balances, get the mix to where you hear the three most important elements of each section of the track clearly and the message/vibe of the song is being transmitted. Then start panning stuff to make space (still in mono if you can) before you EQ. Once you start panning you will have to re-balance fader levels as panning shifts the energy/attention (also subjected to pan law). You can now flip to stereo and continue panning and create some stereo excitement.

Before you even think of reaching for an EQ (unless you hear wild resonances) turn on the automation on your DAW and play around with moving the pieces around, organically, as the musical story unfolds. It is remarkable what you can do with panning and subtle (or not) volume automation to help the pieces not only fit together, but gel and groove together musically (of course this all depends on the arrangement of the song). I should say that at some time before this point you should have High Passed all tracks/instruments of extraneous low frequencies. This should be a pretty good "rough" mix at this point, more like 80~85% of a well arranged and performed track!

You can now do some EQ ... to further glue the separate pieces musically together, fix issues that levels and panning couldn't, or to add excitement. You can also consider some compression at this point too, to help things pop out, not get buried, add excitement or to create dynamics and contrasts (remember, if everything is loud, nothing is loud). You can also start to add, or tweak, effects like reverb and delay to create contrast, depth and excitement.

And finish off with the first rule of automation... well, the second rule of automation... where the first rule is: do automation and the second rule of automation is; once you are finished automating, do some more
[/ESPRESSO RANT]

Sweet gorilla, Dan the man! I’m grateful for your generosity with both words and wizdom!

Hahah, I love the two rules of automation

It’s late night in Denmark, but before I go z-catching I gotta think this out loud:

1. I want that midrange money!
2. I gonna make my vocals and guitars my money tracks (when there’s vox and gui’s going on)
3. I want some of that espresso you’re injecting!
4. I think I want Auratones!
5. I want to reach 85% with (listening) levels/faders, pan, saturation and automation and no EQ or comp
6. What a beautiful strategy!
7. Hmm… I wonder if you find yourself automating EQ’s (a lot) or maybe using dynamic EQ’s?

Thanks again, this is most inspiring, will digest some more

Hihi. We have great espresso here in Montreal One more thing before you catch those zzz... avoid working in solo, only drop into solo momentarily to fix an issue, or do what's needed to get that instrument/track sounding right like what you hear in your head, then balance, pan, EQ, compress in context. This will save you a lot of trouble as well and get you across the finish line quicker.

Lastly, we tend to over complicate things and get all geeky about the process, but it is really simple (when you work with well arranged tracks and good performances, bad arrangements and poor playing is a whole other espresso rant) and always keep the music at heart and the big picture in mind. Once the track is released, nobody cares how you got there, as long as the end result is great, just like when you go to a restaurant and order food, the chef cooks it up and it's presented to you as a whole. The only thing that matters is if it tastes great, not if he used ceramic knives or a gas oven

DanButsu said:

Some good tips up there Fonderie It is really is impossible to say what is needing to be EQed in that range without having all the pieces together. It depends on so many factors, but there are some starting points as mentioned above. 200~300Hz is a build up zone in general.

Don't forget, if something is sounding a little too "muddy" (too much low mids) instead of cutting that region (and possibly making it thin sounding), you could always boost it's opposite to shift our attention; by adding presence you "fix" the muddy sounding "issue" but keep the low-mid power. So sometimes doing the opposite is what's needed! Really depends on the context and desired end result!

Here are two resources that helped me out greatly (and I still reference today)...

Click to expand...

Excellent Resources Dan!

A quick note.

I couldn't get the interactive part of the Interactive Frequency Chart to work in Safari but it works like a charm in Chrome.

Really Nice.

Joe

The very first plugin on every one of my tracks is the Massenburg to high pass and usually cut mudrange.

Well said Cali, HPF first off!

Espresso? Someone said espresso?

Kcatthedog said:

I don't have the mixing expertise of many of you but I find when I think about 100-500, its like there are specific problems and or opportunities almost within each 50-100 cycles ? The first more obvious one being kick and bass ?

Click to expand...

Exactly. We are in logarithmic domain, so the more you move down, the more things are expanded... If between 8000 and 8050Hz practically nothing changes, between 50 and 100Hz there is an entire world, as there is between 100 and 500

DanButsu said:

Well said Cali, HPF first off!

Click to expand...

A perfect way to suck out all life from a mix, so yeah by all means go for it if that's what you want.

Putting a hp on everything is a bad idea. Sure, I use a hp filter on some tracks, but only if it really needs it. Most of the time, instead of reaching for a hp filter, try to listen and find out what is really needed to make it sound good, it might be you only need to cut 2 or 3 dB with a narrow bell filter at 52Hz.. that might sound better than putting a hp filter at 60 Hz for example.

Marando said:

A perfect way to suck out all life from a mix, so yeah by all means go for it if that's what you want.

Putting a hp on everything is a bad idea. Sure, I use a hp filter on some tracks, but only if it really needs it. Most of the time, instead of reaching for a hp filter, try to listen and find out what is really needed to make it sound good, it might be you only need to cut 2 or 3 dB with a narrow bell filter at 52Hz.. that might sound better than putting a hp filter at 60 Hz for example.

Click to expand...

Hah, I understand, I used to think that. There is literally no track that doesn't benefit from a HP at at least 20 or 30. It's all to do with making the driver motion of your speakers more efficient so 50 Hz or whatever is much puncher. I can guarantee if you're not doing it, any competent mastering engineer will, which is a less efficient way of handling it. Try it and if you disagree, you either need to upgrade your filter to the Massenburg, or your monitoring.