shaping the bottom end on a stereo mix.

[pucho812]

Had a mastering engineer talk to me about dealing with the low end on mixes. Said he likes to cut 2dB at 60Hz and the boost 2dB at 40Hz using a pultec style eqp1a's.

Said it brought out the right harmonics and removed the wrong harmonics to make the low end fit right.

Thoughts and opinions?

 

[zebra50]

Surely it depends on what is in the mix?

There can't be a one-size-fits-all magic EQ setting.

[spooky music] Or can there..... [/spooky music]

 

[buildafriend]

I agree, I don't think its one setting fits all. Though I have heard of people who have go to settings on their pultecs.

 

[pucho812]

one size fits all works for lord alge. I agree one size fits all does not work, but it is something worth trying.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Said it brought out the right harmonics and removed the wrong harmonics to make the low end fit right.

What is the definition of right or wrong harmonics? I really despise this kind of statement; I don't doubt the competence of this ME in his job. I question his technical competence when it comes to explaining what he does. For me it's a sign that this guy is not capable of conceptualizing his job.
I wouldn't waste my time listening to him; I don't want heartburns.

 

[zebra50]

>cut 2dB at 60Hz

Is it hum-related? If I am in the UK should I cut 50Hz instead?

(I don't even know if I am joking!)

 

[Mbira]

Seems like it'd depend on the source material? 

 

[0dbfs]

What w/all the skepticism? These are really low and majick frequencies so it's just a couple db anyway. What would you do with your vocal? Turn it up/dn a couple db for the vocal up/dn mix after working to get it sitting just delicately right for xx hours/days?... Wtf? Why not?

Try it and let us know what it did to your mix. I will try it. I will like it.

-jb

 

[mushy]

one size fits all works for lord alge. I agree one size fits all does not work, but it is something worth trying.

The way I understand it, there is an "assistant" that pre mixes everything ITB for Tom Lord Alge and then splits everything out of the box to his one size fits all SSL/outboard setup. So all he is doing (allegedly) is sweetening and summing. But I digress...

This Pultec preset... He uses this no matter the song, the key, the tempo, the genre? It must be nice to be able to engineer music without having to do all of that pesky listening.

 

[desol]

Saying one size fits all is like saying one bass sound fits all, one drum sound fits all, one guitar sound fits all...

Not likely.

 

[pucho812]

one size fits all works for lord alge. I agree one size fits all does not work, but it is something worth trying.

The way I understand it, there is an "assistant" that pre mixes everything ITB for Tom Lord Alge and then splits everything out of the box to his one size fits all SSL/outboard setup. So all he is doing (allegedly) is sweetening and summing. But I digress...

This Pultec preset... He uses this no matter the song, the key, the tempo, the genre? It must be nice to be able to engineer music without having to do all of that pesky listening.

ah yes does that little asian lady still work with him doing that?

As for the magic pultec preset,  it's not an all the time thing but it is one that he uses often with mixes coming out of the bedroom. I was just curious as to what people thought of it as a usable move, not so much to question of he does it all the time or whatever.


edit:have not tried it yet. wanted if anything to spark debate about mastering and doing a move such as that. will let you guys know when I do and maybe even sound cloud the pre/post results

 

[abbey road d enfer]

What w/all the skepticism?

Do you really need more explanation than what several have already said? I thought it was pretty clear that a single setting cannot be universally adequate. It seems to me this is to compensate a deficiency in his processing/monitoring/hearing chain...

These are really low and majick frequencies

Are you serious? Majick frequencies? What about rabbit foot and four leaf clover? Please read the opening post in this thread
http://www.groupdiy.com/index.php?topic=39663.0

  Why not?

I agree. The proof of the pudding...

Try it and let us know what it did to your mix. I will try it.

Please do.

I will like it.

How do you know?

 

[Gold]

Chocolate sauce on spaghetti. Yum! Both taste so good.

 

[0dbfs]

RE: abbey road d enfer

Just to be clear, I was being slightly facetious in my response. ie; the comment about standard procedure of printing vocal up/dn versions without necessarily spending time re-tweaking the mix to cater to the new vocal levels. I can attest to that (Vox +/-) being a very common practice so I wouldn't be surprised about the low-end-shaping practice mentioned being "standard" for a particular individual or group of individuals.

And to be more clear: ya.. it all depends on the PGM and the desired results. That being said I also don't see a description about any further pre/post processing which may-or-may-not be part of that ME's undisclosed custom settings. IOW, what if there was this "static" approach with specific program dependent processing pre/post the so-called-pultec-chain (presumably either two daisy chained units -or-modified/custom/diy- per channel to cut at one low freq and boost at another different low freq... All the pultecs I have used only have a single low-freq select control which affects the frequency for both the boost and cut pots. What puch0812 is describing would either take two units or a modifed/custom/diy'd pultec. Oder?

Basically, we can chit/chat about it all day but need both more and more-specific info to come to any real conclusions and may still disagree even if we were all in the mastering room listening real-time. Plus, it's music so really, absolutely anything goes and it's up to any individuals interpretation of what may or may not be right, wrong, appropriate, or perhaps even "pleasing". The source material is pretty much always custom and unique so having certain processing chains with static settings doesn't necessarily "vanilla'fy" it either.

Ciao!
-jb

 

[Gold]

I would also point out that you rarely hear talk of magical mid range settings. I think this has to do with mid range settings being the most critical. Therefore there is no magical setting. You always hear of the magical 28k or 10Hz setting. Since the those frequencies only matter if something is way out of whack there is room for magic.

 

[pachi2007]

Said it brought out the right harmonics and removed the wrong harmonics: I agree with Abbey

Surely it depends on what is in the mix? YES

There can't be a one-size-fits-all magic EQ setting. RIGHT

one size fits all works for lord alge: I don´t agree. I just see it as a personal way of working, not a "always like this whatever I´m mixing"

Seems like it'd depend on the source material?  OF COURSE

These are really low and majick frequencies : I don´t believe in magic

The way I understand it, there is an "assistant" that pre mixes everything ITB for Tom Lord Alge: This is very common practice in many  studios all around the world. Again, a way of working.It´s more like a pre-production thing than a pre-mixing, involves lots of things and varies a lot depending on the production.

So all he is doing (allegedly) is sweetening and summing ALL he is doing is mixing. Just that simple.

This Pultec preset... He uses this no matter the song, the key, the tempo, the genre? There´s no preset.I´m not saying, HE says. He uses Pultecs after the compressors just to add bottom ´cos he likes it. He likes the sound of the trafos and many times just pushes the input without eqing. It´s not wrong if you don´t like it just because he does.

As for the magic pultec preset,  it's not an all the time thing but it is one that he uses often with mixes coming out of the bedroom.  Who says that?

(Vox +/-) being a very common practice Yes it is, but I think it´s a company/client request thing. It´s more like a 0,2dB thing after the mix is done. Any pro will be confident 110%  with the vocal level after the mix is done. Sometimes there´s (Bass +/-) too

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Just to be clear, I was being slightly facetious in my response.

Sorry; I utterly failed getting the facetious aspect.

the comment about standard procedure of printing vocal up/dn versions without necessarily spending time re-tweaking the mix to cater to the new vocal levels.

Which I'm guilty of quite often. When I do a mix and the producer says he wants more vocals, I give him more vocals. If I need to redo the whole balance of the rest, then there was something wrong to start with. Once the producer wants me to alter my mix, I'm not in control anymore, so I'm expecting the producer to tell me what needs to be modified in the rest of the mix. If he doesn't, I don't change a thing.

 

[Biasrocks]

These are program EQ's, not surgical tweaky EQ's.

As most already know, if you take a look at the curve of a 2db Pultec bump @ 60hz and you'll realize the 2db bump extends to 500hz and the shelf extends right up to 1khz.

A nice way to warm up the bottom end.

Langs are the only Pultec style EQ that allows you to boost and cut the low end at different frequencies. You could bump at 60hz and cut at 50hz or 100hz.

Regards,
Mark

 

[john12ax7]

Regarding pultec style, I often enjoy boosting and cutting the same frequency in the bottom end to make things sit better, program dependent though.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Regarding pultec style, I often enjoy boosting and cutting the same frequency in the bottom end to make things sit better, program dependent though.

It's the well known springboard effect (exaggerated in the attached graph - done at simultaneous max boost & cut). Boosts LF while cutting low-mids.