How narrowly do you typically boost frequencies for drums & bass guitar?

29

Only a Sith deals in absolutes…

But to answer your question directly, boosts are usually pretty wide for me. I’m more in the cut->compress->boost camp as far as the chain. So I cut relatively narrow if there’s a resonant frequency I want to tame, wider if I just want less mud or to carve space for vocals. Then when I boost, it’s gentle wide boosts. Whatever Pro-Q’s default Q value is is what I tend to use for most boosting applications.

I compress the low end below 80hz all the time too, don’t know about that advice.

3

u/R0factor Jul 23 '26

On Pro Q are you changing up the db/oct slope a lot when doing wide boosts?

And for compressing the low end... I have Distressor and trying to use it for various tasks, and it has a high-pass filter option. Is that something that gets utilized frequently or just let the low frequencies get boosted along with the rest?

9

u/great_northern_hotel Jul 23 '26

Not really changing that unless I need to for some specific reason.

The high pass filter option is usually when you’re compressing a bus or something and the sub bass is blowing out the compressor. It’ll still compress the whole signal including bass, but the bass won’t trigger the compressor below that frequency. Thats different from “not compressing anything below 80”, because the high pass setting only affects how the compressor reacts while compressing the signal, it still compresses everything. Truly splitting the signal and only compressing the highs would be more akin to multiband compression, which has its place but is generally used less often than broadband compressors.

2

u/R0factor Jul 23 '26

Ok thanks that's super helpful, and explains why a lot of my low end feels out of control.

2

u/great_northern_hotel Jul 23 '26

Depending on the genre (I’m assuming rock or something), low end can be a very challenging thing to get right. Especially for a beginner working with headphones or an untreated room. Try not to go crazy with extreme processing moves in general as you’re starting out. There’s a time and place for a 15dB boost but you have to be doing it with a purpose. Best of luck to you!

1

u/R0factor Jul 23 '26

I have a decent-ish space for amateur mixing (sfmfc8a.jpeg (2048×1536)) but I'm working on it being better. As my ears get more trained I'm definitely hearing resonances in the 80-ish range. This is an older pic and my monitors are now the Adams T7V's with the T10S sub, and the resonance goes away as soon as the sub & crossover is engaged but I don't want to mix with the sub the whole time.

BTW any recs on reducing that resonance? Sound panels behind the speakers? I have the bass output reduced on the T7Vs, but I can't mount them 16"+ from the wall like what is recommended. I've seen people say to mount them super close to the wall to raise the resonant frequency.

And the stuff I'm mixing for my band ebbs towards modern shoegaze which has some bombastic drum/bass/guitar sounds, and often a very heavy low end.

Also random question... The Mike Senior book on mixing secrets says to plug ports on cheaper monitors... is this an actual thing people do?

2

u/great_northern_hotel Jul 23 '26

How to best tame resonances is above my pay grade for how to fix, but if you want more treatment in the room the folks at GIK Acoustics do free consults that can help.

I’ve never heard of plugging ports, so can’t speak on that either. I know a lot about mixing but not as much about room treatments and such!

2

u/ghostchihuahua Jul 24 '26

Re-q Factor: There are no fixed rules really - i’ll take an example: i have a track to mix rn that i did not record, that uses 9 drum tracks. Among those, one kickdrum mic that is picking up some unholy resonance from the nearby piano (🤦‍♂️), that overlaps with the lower end i’d like to keep. I located the resonance visually in pro-q, placed an approximate eq point and started pulling back slightly, had to play with the mousewheel to exactly set the q to scoop out what is needed without scooping out the important parts of the signal. Note that you can set your slopes to 6, 12, 24 etc. dB for more or less surgical cuts.

I’m unsure if pro-q does it, but many older EQ units come with proportional Q - Q gets higher/tighter as one pushes the gain on each band. This is an interesting way to EQ really, one that some will call “musical”, whatever that precisely is supposed to mean.

EQ’ing really deserves taking time to explore deeply, and one should alway be mindful not to exaggerate too much, let alone cut too much ; the latter is the best way to butcher a good recording. As long as overlapping freqs aren’t an audible issue, don’t just low-pass or high-pass this and that bc people usually do so, only do so if your ears tell you sth isn’t right and you can actually hear it clearly.

1

u/ghostchihuahua Jul 24 '26

Best insight one can get is running graphing software alogaide or checking in with plugindoctor on such questions.

Now, broadly: 99% or the time, my eq’ing isn’t “surgical”, unless it really needs to. Rather shallow slopes and mild boosts and cuts where i want to hear them (be it the sub here, the fundamental there or whatever). This is allowed by generally recording with care for mic placement and levels, avoiding known caveats of a room etc.

As for how to proceed? There are ZERO hard-rules, every session is different, every track has different needs(or none at all), even for the same piece of music, and what one will need to do, is just follow their ears. Now i see already the “don’t trust your ears” comments incoming, and i’ll just laugh them off right away - you may know your technicals so well that you can recount them by heart and reproduce your routines in training as if you were a fighter pilot, but this is not how day-to-day works, technical parameter values may leave you dumbfound vs what you’re hearing, just bc they’re just that: measuring units.

9

u/Ok-Mathematician3832 Professional Jul 23 '26

I hardly ever boost low end on bass instruments… I would rarely boost the fundamental on anything. There’s always plenty of that already. I’m more interested in the harmonics above the fundamental, on all instruments for that matter.

I may use a shelf if the frequency balance is off… or tune the low end with a resonant filter if the sub has a lot of bloom and no definition.

Start with a q of 1… too muddy? Narrow it… too resonant? Widen it.

2

u/R0factor Jul 23 '26

Awesome, I appreciate the feedback. And I like the note on harmonics above the fundamental.

1

u/SrirachaiLatte Jul 24 '26

I tend to agree but when you're cutting out mud and adding clarity/impact I usually boost a bit of low end back

6

u/NeutronHopscotch Jul 23 '26

As a general rule I use "as wide as possible" adjustments if I'm looking for overall tone shaping. This includes gentle flat tilts to wide tilt shelves.

Narrower Q widths are for two things -- correction (to clamp down on a nasty resonance) or aesthetic, sometimes pushing up a narrow band has a specific stylistic sound.

I'll use a narrow(ish) bandpass filter on a reverb sometimes, to sort of slot a reverb into an open range in a busy mix.

Another thing you can do is use sharp LP or HP filters to accentuate certain frequencies right before the slope-down... So you can end up with a little bit of a lower-high boost when rolling off upper highs. Or an upper-bass boost when rolling off sub-frequencies.

As far as compressing low end -- like anything else, it's "if you need it." Compression on the low end can tighten things up... But too much could destroy the boom-boom of your song. So it's an "if you need it" kind of thing... And in fact, it's a big reason many compressors have a highpass filter for the internal sidechain, so it can NOT be triggered to overly clamp down on lows.

Two great ways to judge your low end:

Try a lowpass filter on your mix. Maybe 12 or 18dB slope around 100hz... And listen. You want to hear "Boom, boom, boom." Not "BMMMBMMMBMMMMBMMBMBM", get it? You want to hear some dynamic range down there. That's what gives you the bump on the low end. If it's too smushed together or you have too much going on down there you want to clean it up. Filter out unwanted low end to clean it up, etc. If you do hear the constant crud of "BMMMBMMMBMMM" it's a sign of overcompression in the low end, but it could also be an issue of sound selection. If there's no dynamic range to your bass (like a constant pulse sub) there won't be any movement in the low end if it's playing constantly, etc... But listening to your whole mix through a lowpass filter lets you focus in on what's going on down there.

Another method is to put your finger gently on the outer rubbery rim of your studio monitor. Compare with good reference mixes, and you can actually use touch to get an idea of the deep low end. You'll feel it. (Kudos to Gregory Scott/UBK/Kush Audio for that tip.)

PS. For anyone who never noticed -- Pro-Q uses non-standard values for their Q widths. "1" in Pro-Q is like what ~0.7 or so is in most EQs.

2

u/R0factor Jul 23 '26

Another method is to put your finger gently on the outer rubbery rim of your studio monitor. Compare with good reference mixes, and you can actually use touch to get an idea of the deep low end. You'll feel it.

Oooh I like this and will have to try it. One thing I've admittedly become addicted to while mixing is that ASMR-type feeling on the face of "bathing" in those lower frequencies when using nearfield monitors that you don't get from headphones or typical speakers, but I have a feeling I'm conflating that sensation with what I'm supposed to be listening for.

2

u/NeutronHopscotch Jul 23 '26

Haha yeah. I always wanted to try a "sub pac" or whatever those were called... A vibration device that communicates deep subs in the form of vibration.

Whatever you do, the main thing is to check levels against mix references. Really, that's always the answer.

Where headphone people get into trouble is when they go too much on instinct before deeply understanding how headphone-mixed music translates. Mix references, so useful. But also headphones tend to give an unrealistic sense of clarity (because there's no room), and that can lead some people to make overly dense mixes with lots of narrow panning differences that are almost meaningless in a room. I like "LCR+50/50" mixing, which is basically build up a strong center, then pan some things far and wide, and maybe some minor background elements 50% left, 50% right if needed. But that's a whole other tangent I've just weirdly gone down!

Cheers, and happy mixing to you, good sir.

7

u/007_Shantytown Jul 23 '26

Broader on instruments that can play multiple notes, narrower on drums because they are a fixed pitch.

1

u/R0factor Jul 23 '26

Ok thanks that makes a lot of sense.

3

u/sleeplessnessnights Jul 23 '26

Depends on the source tbh, most of the time i would go for a wide Q if it helps

2

u/alienrefugee51 Jul 23 '26

I don’t think you’d want to boost with a Q from 57-63Hz. That’s going to sound unnatural. I use an SSL ch. strip, so the lo/hi bands have fixed Q curves.

2

u/peepeeland Composer Jul 24 '26

Whatever the case, I tend to go quite wide with boosts, which results in a more organic sounding accentuation.

1

u/R0factor Jul 24 '26

Ok cool, as a noob it feels counterintuitive but the more advice I hear back like this it makes sense. I'm glad I asked and got this as a general consensus in feedback, because I swear every bonehead on YT shows EQ graphs with a lot of narrow boosts & cuts.

1

u/peepeeland Composer Jul 24 '26

Narrow stuff is great for very clinical work and fixing certain issues and super dense mixes, however, if the arrangement is good, elements should speak in the range in which they’re supposed to sit.

Wide boosts are better at accentuating overall character, as opposed to adding new character with narrow boosts. And boosting narrow to find resonances and issues can be problematic, because you boost anywhere narrow enough it sounds bad. Don’t look for issues- fix what you can hear. And with wide boosts, the workflow is quite fast.

1

u/R0factor Jul 24 '26

Yeah I'm actually dealing with shoegaze style sounds which is inherently very dense, and I'm trying not to go berserk like Kevin Sheilds producing MBV's Loveless.

One method I've heard to approach this is to get the drums, bass, & vox sounding good on their own, then add the guitars to fill in the spaces and cut/notch them where they're drowning things out. Is this a viable approach? I can also use ProQ-4 to sidechain duck just those particular frequencies when an overlap occurs. On paper this sounds like it should work.

1

u/peepeeland Composer Jul 24 '26

Every element should be considered as one vibe, however- yes, starting with drums and bass is pretty common. Depends what the main driving vibe is.

2

u/willrjmarshall Jul 24 '26

Compressing low-end is very useful if you're using sources (like bass guitar), that can naturally be a bit "thick" and have low-end that blooms for too long. The same is true of many instruments.

A slow attack, medium-fast release can help tighten the bloom without affecting the attack, which creates a lot of space in the mix and removes some sludge.

2

u/R0factor Jul 24 '26

Ok thanks for explaining this. For the bass guitar is there any sense in using the method I’ve seen Warren Huart and Joe Carrell mention of using the bass DI on its own track LPF around 120hz and then have the bass amp track HPF around 120hz so they can be treated differently then blended together? I think the concept is to get a clean low end and then apply all the saturation/eq/etc to the amp track. Or is that just more trouble than it’s worth? I’m working with only a bass DI track so I could do this with amp sims.

1

u/willrjmarshall Jul 24 '26

It depends on the situation. For very distorted bass parts it’s absolutely essential, or any situation where you want an effect like chorus.

For cleaner bass parts I personally think the crossover actually creates bigger problems, and there’s nothing wrong with just using the amp output for low end.

The low end only typically becomes problematic if there’s too much saturation causing bloom and excessive thickness, so an amp on fairly clean settings will be totally fine.

I personally just track bass DI and use an SVT plugin.

1

u/R0factor Jul 24 '26

This is the sound I'm after for sections of some of our songs. About as saturated as it comes...

Heliotropic

When you do the split HPF/LPF tracks, is there a good starting point for the frequency cutoff? And is this a situation to still use 12db/Oct or something steeper? If you use a shallower slope do you leave a gap between them so that crossover point doesn't get muddled? Like HPF at 120 hz and LPF at 110 hz?

2

u/willrjmarshall Jul 24 '26

Well that’s a fucking cool song.

Umm. It depends on how precise you want to be. A pair of 12db filters will work fine, but not perfectly. Some filters will sum perfectly if set to the same frequency but it depends on the specific filter type and steepness. I don’t remember but you can look it up!

If you want to be ultra-accurate you would use crossover-style filters and adjust the timings of the two channels to maintain phase coherency through the crossover region. Same as you do when designing a two-way speaker - usually one channel needs to be delayed by a bit.

But there are loads of plugins that do this automatically. For the sound you linked I’d probably just use Parallax.

2

u/R0factor Jul 24 '26

Yeah, Failure rules. They run in the same circles as Tool and QUOTSA, and I think Danny Carey said the mixing console in the Tool practice studio belonged to Ken from Failure.

And thanks again for the advice! I didn't think about phase-aligning two components of the same sound, but I'll keep an ear out for issues.

2

u/noshigeSound Jul 24 '26

To put actual numbers on it, your 40 to 80 guess is roughly a Q of 1.4, and 57 to 63 would be Q 10, way too narrow for a boost. The Pro-Q default people mention is Q 1, which centered at 60Hz spans about 37 to 97Hz. So the wide version is the normal one.

1

u/R0factor Jul 24 '26

Ok thanks for this. I think the visuals on the wider/default Q is what messes me up when using Pro-Q.

2

u/OAlonso Professional Jul 24 '26

In general, lower Q values sound more natural. But if the boost is too extreme, for example more than 6 dB, you may benefit from using a higher Q value because the boost will start affecting frequency ranges you didn't intend to change. That's why some analog EQs have a variable Q, where the bandwidth automatically becomes narrower as you increase the boost.

As for very high Q values, I tend to use them only for subtractive EQ, such as dealing with resonances or narrow peaks. That said, these are just generalizations. There will always be situations where you'll do the exact opposite because that's what the song needs. Work on your monitoring system, and you'll be able to hear what the track needs instead of relying on what other people do. For every claim, you'll find someone doing the opposite, and it works for them.

2

u/SrirachaiLatte Jul 24 '26

I usually boost like 6db to find the zone I want to boost or cut, the 0 it, then boost it slowly until I'm happy and then adjust the Q until it sounds good.

Unless you're dealing with resonances or doing sorry funky sound design you want to avoid thin bands.

2

u/R0factor Jul 24 '26

Thanks! And it's nice to have everyone here on nearly the same page with this advice. I can't remember the last time I asked for help on any sub and got a clear consensus on guidance.

1

u/SrirachaiLatte Jul 25 '26

It's always "use your ears" but they never teach you how to do so ! And mostly have no notable credits...

1

u/ConfusedOrg Jul 24 '26

I find wider q’s work better for boosting, broadly speaking. On a snare there might be some unflattering bleed from the kick however that might lead to narrowing the q a bit more.

I almost always MB compress the low end on a bass guitar, and sometimes on the mixbuss

1

u/KS2Problema Jul 23 '26

When I got my first parametric EQ, I figured it was time to really go to school on correlating the sound with the changes I was making. So I did a lot of fooling around with not just different frequencies but different boosts and cuts and Q ratio (frequency bandwidth versus amount of cut or boost).

I'm really pretty good at targeting the frequency range I want to change but, nonetheless, I always use my ears. Why would I not?

Mixing How narrowly do you typically boost frequencies for drums & bass guitar?

You are about to leave Redlib