I've noticed that on my bass tracks the bass guitar notes are uneven on the low frequencies depending on the string and note being struck. An open E will sound making an open D sound wimpy. I kind of want to compress the lower frequencies with a multiband compressor to even things out, but since the mastering stage will do this to the whole track anyways, is it worth it? Will I just be pissing off the person who's mastering?
Using a multiband compressor on bass guitar
- Thread starter mintcheerios
- Start date
ahjteam
Anssi Tenhunen
The 'twiddle the knobs until it sounds good' advice doesn't work in this case unfortunately. Just because it sounds better to me at the mixing stage doesn't mean that it's optimal for the mastering stage. For example, compressing hard on the mix bus may sound good to the mixer, but the mastering engineer won't have any room to work his magic since compression can't be subtracted.
everybody's x
My name is Damage
the mastering engineer will have zero control over the recorded and summed bass tracks,unless you are sending him stems, in fact if you have a wildly out of control bass guitar hitting the two buss it will fuck up the mix. compressing a bass track is pretty standard, if not mandatory.
in other words twiddle the knobs until it sounds good. Geeting it to sound better to you at the mixing stage is the point of mixing, the ME shouldn't have to completely reshape your mix.
in other words twiddle the knobs until it sounds good. Geeting it to sound better to you at the mixing stage is the point of mixing, the ME shouldn't have to completely reshape your mix.
Grave Desire
Member
I usually always multi-band comp the bass guitar. Like you said the low end can still be out of hand no matter how hard you compress with just an ordinary compressor. Also too, usually if you use a multi-band compressor that lets the high end of the bass not compressed as much which can help the picking/finger sound to pop out better but not make the whole bass overwhelm the mix.
I actually got that idea of this forum...I think it was Brandy(sp?) who mentioned that..whoever mixed the some of the necrophagist stuff.
I actually got that idea of this forum...I think it was Brandy(sp?) who mentioned that..whoever mixed the some of the necrophagist stuff.
TTOS
Member
Probably out of my depth here but, if you use Cubase (I use SX3) the supplied Steinberg multiband comp works wonders for me. I just use the 'electric bass' preset. It works especially well for 'finger players' If you don't use Cubase, then..........
Thanks for the insights, I think I will compress the low-end. However one thing mentioned I don't completely agree with is that the goal of mixing is necessarily to get it sounding as good as possible to the mixer (if you plan on getting it mastered). This may seem counter-intuitive at first but it makes sense when you consider what's done during mastering (harmonic excitation, multiband compression, limiting, stereo widening etc). A mix that is going to get mastered should be treated differently from one that isn't (such as mixes going straight to clients). Bobby Owsinski advises not to over-eq and that it's better to keep your mix a bit dull and let the mastering engineer brighten things up. On compressing before mastering he says "Squash it for your friends. Squash it for your clients. But leave some dynamics for your mastering engineer."
The second sentence of your last post is fucking hillarious, mintcheerios.
So you're one of those "fix-it-in-the-mastering" types?
Imagine this scenerio for a second. You're sitting with your biggest client ever and your mix is dull as shit with a boomy bass. You look at the guys in the band and say "it's cool, so-and-so will fix it in the mastering!". The next day you get a call from the label saying that they want their tracks and are going with someone else to mix the CD. You sure you want to keep making those shitty mixes, bro?
So you're one of those "fix-it-in-the-mastering" types?
Imagine this scenerio for a second. You're sitting with your biggest client ever and your mix is dull as shit with a boomy bass. You look at the guys in the band and say "it's cool, so-and-so will fix it in the mastering!". The next day you get a call from the label saying that they want their tracks and are going with someone else to mix the CD. You sure you want to keep making those shitty mixes, bro?
AudioGeekZine
arsehole know-it-all
I agree.
1- There is no such thing as a rough mix (a message for everyone)
2- Mix like your job depends on it. Mix the fuck out of those tracks.
3 - Intentionally making a mix imperfect just so the next guy has something to do is the worst idea EVER!
On multiband compressing anything: Try it, does it sound better or worse? Who gives a fuck if the other kids are doing it.
Why is everyone gang raping this poor straw man? No one's saying that we should rely on mastering to make a shitty mix sound good. The claim is this. Since mastering alters the track through various processes, some precautions should be taken while mixing. Compression is an example because while it's possible to add more to it, it's not possible to subtract it. This also applies to EQing and adding excitement to a mix. If you crush your tracks during mixing to sound like the latest Red Hot Chili Peppers album and then send it to the mastering house, they're not going to have much room to make their adjustments. Is this really so disagreeable?
Also at the risk of sounding like a heretic (and going off topic), I think the "try it and keep it if you like it" and the "there are no rules" responses are unproductive. Here's why (long rant ahead). There actually are general rules to music production. It's not an exact science, but neither is music composition. There is no best song, but there is a distinction between songs and noises. This is why we have music schools, because there are general rules to learn about music. Some staunch relativists may bite the bullet here and say music schools are all worthless, but their arguments are usually not compelling. Even many jazz musicians known for their defiance towards the classical norm have still adopted many classical rules for their music making such as the 12 note equal temperament scale.
Now this isn't to say we shouldn't break rules, but just that we need rules in the first place if we want to break them. Glenn on this forum has made a brilliant guide to drum recording, but that's because he gave us general rules to work with and good reasons for them. Imagine if he announced that he was going to make this badass metal drum guide and ended up writing one sentence. The sentence is "Do whatever sounds good to you." Needless to say many people would be disappointed, even people who use that response themselves. It's amazing how much forum bandwidth has been wasted on posts like that. There actually are answers to questions about metal audio production. Some may be harder to answer, but just saying "do what sounds best to you" doesn't solve anything.
When an amateur asks "Where should I pan the bass drum in my metal song?", there actually are good answers to this question. For example "Usually the center" is a good answer. "Pan it wherever it sounds best to you" is unhelpful.
It seems like the validity of the "do what sounds good" response rises in correlation with the difficulty of the question. Such a question may be something like "What compression ratio should I use for bass guitar?" While an answer like "twiddle the knob until it sounds good" may seem more appropriate here, it's not any more helpful than for an easier question like where to pan the bass drum. Almost any answer that gives any information about the question is a better answer. Even "Try to avoid a 1:1 ratio" is a better answer because it specifically pertains to the question.
Also at the risk of sounding like a heretic (and going off topic), I think the "try it and keep it if you like it" and the "there are no rules" responses are unproductive. Here's why (long rant ahead). There actually are general rules to music production. It's not an exact science, but neither is music composition. There is no best song, but there is a distinction between songs and noises. This is why we have music schools, because there are general rules to learn about music. Some staunch relativists may bite the bullet here and say music schools are all worthless, but their arguments are usually not compelling. Even many jazz musicians known for their defiance towards the classical norm have still adopted many classical rules for their music making such as the 12 note equal temperament scale.
Now this isn't to say we shouldn't break rules, but just that we need rules in the first place if we want to break them. Glenn on this forum has made a brilliant guide to drum recording, but that's because he gave us general rules to work with and good reasons for them. Imagine if he announced that he was going to make this badass metal drum guide and ended up writing one sentence. The sentence is "Do whatever sounds good to you." Needless to say many people would be disappointed, even people who use that response themselves. It's amazing how much forum bandwidth has been wasted on posts like that. There actually are answers to questions about metal audio production. Some may be harder to answer, but just saying "do what sounds best to you" doesn't solve anything.
When an amateur asks "Where should I pan the bass drum in my metal song?", there actually are good answers to this question. For example "Usually the center" is a good answer. "Pan it wherever it sounds best to you" is unhelpful.
It seems like the validity of the "do what sounds good" response rises in correlation with the difficulty of the question. Such a question may be something like "What compression ratio should I use for bass guitar?" While an answer like "twiddle the knob until it sounds good" may seem more appropriate here, it's not any more helpful than for an easier question like where to pan the bass drum. Almost any answer that gives any information about the question is a better answer. Even "Try to avoid a 1:1 ratio" is a better answer because it specifically pertains to the question.
I don't know about your experience but here's what I've learned from mine:
No room ever sounded exactly the same. No player ever played exactly the same. No console ever sounded the exactly same. No band ever sounded exactly the same. And no mix ever needed exactly the same thing to make it sound as good as it could. If you know how to use a gate/eq/compressor/ect..., than you will know what to do when the time comes. And when the time comes, you should do what sounds the best. You should not do what sounds worse because you are going to be mastering your album.
No room ever sounded exactly the same. No player ever played exactly the same. No console ever sounded the exactly same. No band ever sounded exactly the same. And no mix ever needed exactly the same thing to make it sound as good as it could. If you know how to use a gate/eq/compressor/ect..., than you will know what to do when the time comes. And when the time comes, you should do what sounds the best. You should not do what sounds worse because you are going to be mastering your album.
PostMortem1666
Ocean Planet is on burn
i completely agree with hex. i dont make a mix dull so the mastering house can make it bright. why do that when i can make it bright and have a better mix to my ears? there is NOT rules in music. there is guidelines. everything in music is guidelines as to what would sound good. not necessarily rules.
and hey if panning a bass to the left sounds better to the mixing engineer's ears then by god pan it!
and hey if panning a bass to the left sounds better to the mixing engineer's ears then by god pan it!
AudioGeekZine
arsehole know-it-all
Alright Mr. Mintcheerios, most of the time I use a normal compressor on bass, usually something that has some character. If there were major problems where the low E kicks the fuck out of the compressor and just isn't working like it should then I'll switch to something like WaveArts Multidynamics whatever its called, and I'll compress the lows more than the rest. Different situations, different techniques. *
If you don't want to multiband compress you could alternately automate every single note of the bass track so its at a consistent level, that sounds like fun doesn't it!
*I'm not a professional but I pretend to be one on the internet
The mastering engineer may multiband compress if the mix needs it. He won't be able to compress the bass by itself though, just the overall low frequency content of the track. By not getting an even level for the bass you will be pissing him off.mintcheerios said:
If you don't want to multiband compress you could alternately automate every single note of the bass track so its at a consistent level, that sounds like fun doesn't it!
*I'm not a professional but I pretend to be one on the internet
I agree with 90% of what you said, but your concluding sentence is a non-sequitur. The question is, would it be wise for me to crush my tracks to sound like the latest Arch Enemy before sending it to the mastering house because I like and want that sound? My answer is no. You seem to disagree.
I found another professional with something to say about it. This is from Gannon Kashiwa (Digidesign).
"There's a bunch of things that people do to degrade their sound. One of the things is overcompressing and using way too much processing in order to get that cd sound too early in the process. I see mixes that are totally squashed and maximized up to the top of the digital word, leaving the studio heading to master. There's nothing wrong with putting a mastering chain on your master fader so you can check it out, but if you leave it on, you're not giving the mastering engineer any choices to work with dynamically and sonically. If you pack the word up into the final 2 bits of a 24-bit word (that's anything hotter than -12dB FS), there isn't really much left for those guys to do. You can't uncompress something once it's already maximized."
AGZ: Yeah, I finally figured that the ME wouldn't be able to mess with the bass by itself which is why I opted to compress the low-end on the bass. It sounds really good by the way and once again thanks for your and everyone else's insights.
PostMortem: If I paid someone to mix my tracks and they panned the bass drum all the way to the left, I would be pissed. Call me a traditionalist, but I just can't see myself being like "Well since you did what sounded best to you, good job! I can't wait to talk to the onslaught of people asking me why the hell my bass drum is panned 100% left!"
Yes there are different degrees of rules like strict rules and rules of thumb. It has to be noted that there is a spectrum that each one falls under. Let's say the strict rule is on the left of the spectrum and the lax rules are on the right. Rules become more lax and more breakable when there are less compelling reasons to sustain them. When there are loads of reasons, the rules becomes stricter. For example, it is advisable to not crank up a 1000w bass amp connected to your producer's guitar cabinet and start playing like Les Claypool. This is not merely a rule of thumb. It's a rule that must be followed if you want to record metal music or live to see the next day for that matter.
What makes this rule a strict rule is the fact that there is a mountain of good reasoning for it. If we move further to the right of the spectrum we have things like panning the bass drum in metal music. It's usually the middle or very close to the middle and there are good reasons for it that a professional could probably explain better than I could (mix balance, freq distribution etc). Breaking this rule has the potential to piss off some clients, but at least you're not blowing up someone's speakers. When we go further to the right we have more subtle and lax rules like EQing the 3khz on the bass drum for metal. There aren't a mountain of reasons for doing this, it just makes the bass drum cut through the mix which is generally desirable in fast metal music. We can go really far to the right of the spectrum and run into things like using active EMGs for metal over passive Duncans. While there are good reasons to use an EMG 81 over passive Duncans, there isn't anything discriminatingly compelling about the argument, whereas something like "try to get something better than you Fender Squire stock pickups" will be more agreeable among the metal audience therefore putting it more to the left of the spectrum.
When people ask questions about whether something should be done or not, they are seeking your opinions and the reasons for them. At whatever spectrum the question lies, 'do what you like' is just as unhelpful at the left as it is to the right. This applies even if a question is really far right like "should I get the ivory emgs or the white ones?", although that's an easy one for me, white all the way.
Mintcherrios, my concluding sentence relates my answer back to your original question; isn't that what you've been complaining about for half of this thread?
If you want your mix to sound like the latest Arch Enemy CD, yes you have to address the compression issues in the mix instead of in the mastering. Since this thread was written in the first place, you probably just don't know what mastering is and that's okay. It's just a process to make sure your CD sounds great anywhere it's going to be played and to make sure that it can be replicated without any issues.
Mastering isn't the time to make your artistic vision come true, that's actually called mixing.
I'm guessing you probably downloaded the Ozone All-In-One-Mastering Demo since you seem to think mastering an album requires "harmonic excitation, multiband compression, limiting, stereo widening ect". Well, really it dosen't require all that much. Probably some EQ, maybe clip the expensive converter for a db or so of volume and maybe a limiter to catch some peaks is all that it usually takes. Drastic changes to your mix usually don't happen to good mixes during mastering. If you're making mixes that need all of that done to them, then I think you should go back and mix it a lot better. I don't know about you but if I attened a mastering session where the guy needed to use "harmonic excitation, multiband compression, limiting, stereo widening ect" ...I'd feel like he was changing my work too much and I'd feel like I gave him a shit mix to work with, both of which I'm trying to avoid.
If you want your mix to sound like the latest Arch Enemy CD, yes you have to address the compression issues in the mix instead of in the mastering. Since this thread was written in the first place, you probably just don't know what mastering is and that's okay. It's just a process to make sure your CD sounds great anywhere it's going to be played and to make sure that it can be replicated without any issues.
Mastering isn't the time to make your artistic vision come true, that's actually called mixing.
I'm guessing you probably downloaded the Ozone All-In-One-Mastering Demo since you seem to think mastering an album requires "harmonic excitation, multiband compression, limiting, stereo widening ect". Well, really it dosen't require all that much. Probably some EQ, maybe clip the expensive converter for a db or so of volume and maybe a limiter to catch some peaks is all that it usually takes. Drastic changes to your mix usually don't happen to good mixes during mastering. If you're making mixes that need all of that done to them, then I think you should go back and mix it a lot better. I don't know about you but if I attened a mastering session where the guy needed to use "harmonic excitation, multiband compression, limiting, stereo widening ect" ...I'd feel like he was changing my work too much and I'd feel like I gave him a shit mix to work with, both of which I'm trying to avoid.
PostMortem1666
Ocean Planet is on burn
ok you obviously took me way too literally mintcheerios and didnt understand my point. but whatever im done arguing. your not listening to what we are saying anyway you are just arguing so why did you even ask the question in the first place?
Gannon Kashiwa and Bobby Owsinski are the sources for my claim. I've even posted quotes explicitly stating their views. Do those two not know what mastering is? Your answer (or avoidance) to this question should be very revealing as to where the apex of our disagreement lies.
PostMortem1666 said:
Let me break down exactly what happened in this post to fully satisfy your question.
One day I noticed my bass guitar was uneven sounding on the lower frequencies. I decided to fix it using a multiband compressor. Then I remembered reading something about being cautious with using too much compression in the mixing stage from books written by veterans of the industry. So I had slight reservations with using a multiband compressor. So I thought, hey I'll ask those smart folks over at Sneap's forum.
I post.
The first response is unhelpful.
everybody's x Grave Desire make helpful posts (thanks btw).
I agree to compress the low end and further elaborate on why I had my reservations in the first place citing a quote by Bobby Owsinski.
HexTheNet accuses me of being a 'fix-it-in-the-mastering' type without stating why.
AGZ concurs.
I defend myself from the accusation that I'm a 'fit-it-in-the-mastering' type using evidence and sources. I bitch about unhelpful answers like 'do what sounds good' wasting bandwidth.
AGZ responds with a very helpful post.
Hex and postmortem disagree with my original claim. Post says that mixers should pan bass to the left if they think it sounds good.
I counter Hex's claim using more evidence and sources. I attack relativism a little more.
Hex disagrees again and claims I probably don't know what mastering is at the same time claiming that mastering is "Probably some EQ, maybe clip the expensive converter for a db or so of volume and maybe a limiter to catch some peaks is all that it usually takes".
Postmortem says I took him too literally. Perhaps you're right, but I could have used a smiley since I do read things literally a lot.
I defend myself from the claims made against me and challenge Hex to answer a simple question.
I answer Postmortems latest question by summarizing this entire thread thus far.
Zombietakeover
Member
Thanks for the summary of the thread, I didn't see that coming. Also, my bad for trying to help you.
Multiband compressor on bass guitar? Yes. Please do that. As was mentioned on above threads, your MasterHouse will appreciate it, making it easier for them to manage the low end of the track(s). When it comes to mastering, it seems many artists/musicians COMPLETELY under-appreciate (and don't really understand) the value of mastering. Has anyone heard the expression: "You will get the best results from your music if you have a different person record, someone else mix, and completely different person to master"? Of course, choose wisely who does which job! Mastering is 'quality control'--an extra eye, an alternate expert looking at the music, and putting it up to standard! Think about this: Compression, Stereo Widening, EQ Balance, Saturation, and RMS level (perceived volume) is what makes mastering a speciality. In regard to multiband comp on bass, YES!! Compressing the low end will not interfere with the key work that is involved with mastering. If we do things to mixes that does interfere with the MasterHouse and what they want to do with a mix when they get it, they won't like our mixes very much, and might hope we don't send them any more tracks!
I recall it was stated a time or two that music should be 'brightened', attacky, punchy, already mixed like it would sound being played on the radio, SUPER ballsy low end, fairytale wide stereo-field mixdown... these are not what the main focus of the recording/mix is. To touch slightly on any of these details is 'acceptable', and you won't have someone disgruntlingly mastering the track(s).
The importance of mixing is to have everything BALANCED well together. For example, kick beater smack should not have a stinking loud high end EQ compared to the snare. Your tamborine shouldn't be piercing your ears, while the overheads sound like they have a blanket on them. These are the things that are important for the MasterHouse. If your mixes are 'dull', but things are EQ balanced very well, nothing's out of wack, or EQ'ed way in left field, the Masterer will love you to death, and they will have your tracks sounding like it came right out of the oven, freshly served to all iTunes/Radio listeners. If you feel like your kick and snare (example) are poking out a dB or three too far in the mix, sticking out too much, MasterHouse will kiss you on the forehead and say, "Thank you for not smashing the punch out of your tracks like the other goofy bands do!" So, too much dynamic, not enough high end in your face... RELAX. Get the mix balanced, all instruments' tone 'coloured' the way you like them.
Here's an idea: Use a hi/low pass filter on your master buss, and sweep specific frequencies for the balance of all the instruments. Look at 2Khz, look at 210Hz, 80Hz, 5Khz, 10Khz, 16Khz.... This will give you a good idea on what your mix will look like, under the microscope of the MasterHouse.
Your mix is dull, you say? And, you think that's a huge problem? This means, as a mixing engineer, you're not focusing on the right things.
*I know this whole reply seems off-topic, but it was mentioned several times in this thread about Mastering's relevance to multiband compressor, and whether or not it's questionable. I hope this helps ease your mind on using Multiband. It won't ruin the mix or master. You do want to *fix* the bass to distribute it's low-low end throughout the song (Worth mentioning, I'm not suggesting Multiband on overall mix. Use it on individual tracks, on issues like uneven low end through out a dynamic bass track)
I recall it was stated a time or two that music should be 'brightened', attacky, punchy, already mixed like it would sound being played on the radio, SUPER ballsy low end, fairytale wide stereo-field mixdown... these are not what the main focus of the recording/mix is. To touch slightly on any of these details is 'acceptable', and you won't have someone disgruntlingly mastering the track(s).
The importance of mixing is to have everything BALANCED well together. For example, kick beater smack should not have a stinking loud high end EQ compared to the snare. Your tamborine shouldn't be piercing your ears, while the overheads sound like they have a blanket on them. These are the things that are important for the MasterHouse. If your mixes are 'dull', but things are EQ balanced very well, nothing's out of wack, or EQ'ed way in left field, the Masterer will love you to death, and they will have your tracks sounding like it came right out of the oven, freshly served to all iTunes/Radio listeners. If you feel like your kick and snare (example) are poking out a dB or three too far in the mix, sticking out too much, MasterHouse will kiss you on the forehead and say, "Thank you for not smashing the punch out of your tracks like the other goofy bands do!" So, too much dynamic, not enough high end in your face... RELAX. Get the mix balanced, all instruments' tone 'coloured' the way you like them.
Here's an idea: Use a hi/low pass filter on your master buss, and sweep specific frequencies for the balance of all the instruments. Look at 2Khz, look at 210Hz, 80Hz, 5Khz, 10Khz, 16Khz.... This will give you a good idea on what your mix will look like, under the microscope of the MasterHouse.
Your mix is dull, you say? And, you think that's a huge problem? This means, as a mixing engineer, you're not focusing on the right things.
*I know this whole reply seems off-topic, but it was mentioned several times in this thread about Mastering's relevance to multiband compressor, and whether or not it's questionable. I hope this helps ease your mind on using Multiband. It won't ruin the mix or master. You do want to *fix* the bass to distribute it's low-low end throughout the song (Worth mentioning, I'm not suggesting Multiband on overall mix. Use it on individual tracks, on issues like uneven low end through out a dynamic bass track)
