Realization: Metal engineers control low-end best?

[Aaron Smith]

One of my biggest ambitions of late has been to inject as much tight sub low into metal mixes without destroying the clarity. It's quite interesting.

I can relate to this. It's certainly tough to get that sub-low feel into a metal mix without it being too overpowering, but with patience and a keen ear, it's doable. For me it's been easiest to first get the kick nestled in with the right amount of low-end impact, and then it serves as a sort of reference for seating the bass guitar against (especially with a 100% sampled kick sound). This is where having your own "go-to" kick samples can be extremely helpful- if they represent the way you like your low end sitting in a metal mix, why struggle through the whole process every single time you do a new project? Just make slight tweaks as is appropriate for the given project, and get on with it

 

[greyskull]

i agree, you hear alot of "rock" guys get into trouble when they try and mix faster stuff. Its certainly one of the hardest things to get right.

this is true.
i think though, that metal engineers control low end MOST. certaintly for heavier stuff you need that tightness. but on slower more rocky stuff, having the fatness can be great.

 

[kev]

I've really gone off high passing overheads drastically, because you can get so much of a fuller sound by really opening up the low-end on them, but then the trouble moves to controlling the mid-bass build-up during double kick sections.

That was one of the Staub techniques for the slow rock wasn't it mate?

 

[smy1]

That was one of the Staub techniques for the slow rock wasn't it mate?

It's not really a "signature technique". Making 80% of the drumsound come from the overhead kinda necessitates that and it's been done since the days of Elvis, really:

1) Make the OH sound good with mic placement and a lot of EQ (don't be afraid to boost and notch 6-8 frequencies)
2) THEN bring up the individual channels (possibly sample replaced) and augment the OH sound that you have.
3) THEN add room mics.

If you mix drums like that (like a large number of engineers have done in the past 40 years), I will guarantee you that in 90% of all cases you will have a significant boost in the 100hz area and some scooping in the 250-700 going on. Simply because it makes OH in general sound more "polished" and thick (the low end is usually lacking a bit in the OH mics).

A while ago I posted this Testament drumsound reconstruction: http://www.faderhead.com/blogs/mp3/faderhead_panning_reverb_placement.mp3 and after that this panning idea: http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/...rb-how-create-realistic-3d-image-drumset.html - and I got a lot of people writing me PM's because their stuff sounded less organic/cohesive/big.

That was probably because they mixed with the separated metal approach in mind - aka: samples on every channel and highpass the OHs till 500hz.

Both approaches are totally legit and have their space. You just need to sort out when to use which.

 

[kev]

It's not really a "signature technique". Making 80% of the drumsound come from the overhead kinda necessitates that and it's been done since the days of Elvis, really.

Thanks Smy. I've never really gone to great degrees with it actually, could be one of the simpler things to try to mess around with. I think it was CFH on here who specificaly cited Staub pumping huge degrees of 100hz into his mixes when it came to OH's.

Edit: Just caught your elaboration too : )

 

[Ermz]

I recently pumped 15dB of 100hz into the OHs on a tech death thing and it sounded sick to me, albeit a bit pumpy.

The problem is reuniting these approaches with metal, and maintaining that low-end clarity as well as achieving adequate density. I'm a bit sick of hearing wimpy low-end in metal, but I certainly don't see flabby crap to be much of an improvement either. My quest has been to cram as much quality low end into mixes as humanly possible, using as much of the spectrum as I can.