Kick drums, multiband compressors, and apparent volume

[stuck]

I have gleaned a great method for crafting massive kick drums, from several great mixing engineers.

If you need a huge kick drum, you have to worry about a few things.

1. the sub frequencies, centering somewhere near 50 hz
2. the thump at somewhere between 100 and 200 hz
3. a click somewhere around 1-2k hz

Fundamentally, you're splitting the frequency band into three areas. They're approximate, and you have to sweep around with a filter to be able to really hear where the most powerful signal is sitting.

There are plugins that split the bands in the way you need, but they aren't usually flexible enough. They keep everything phase-coherent, so you can't cross over the bands like you may want to. Instead, you can split the original kick into three copies, and then filter just for the lows, the mids, and the highs.

Now you can really start dissecting the sound.

Start by putting a compressor on every channel.

Now mute all and listen to just the lows. The thing to consider when trying to boost the lows is that the sub frequencies take longer to develop. After all, 50 hz means that the wave doesn't cycle completely for 20 ms. That's an eternity in the world of the 'transient'- the short burst of frequencies at the beginning of many sounds.

What this means is that you can usually use a quick attack on the compressor to push the volume of the low frequency down, and let it swell up a few milliseconds later. The subs are there to linger a bit and rumble like a mofo. The bonus of killing the sub transient is that you can turn it up way louder. Transients are usually a lot louder than the sustained pitches they're coupled with.

So now your sub is going ...vvVVVRRRRRRMMmm

Then we turn to the 'thump' the frequency band around 100-200hz. Here, you likely want to do the opposite, with a medium attack on the compressor and a quick decay. The idea is to get that thump out in 10 ms and treat it like a transient so it thumps you in the chest. A quick decay highlights the effect of the thump.

This is where it can get tricky, because if you shorten the attack on the compressor, less of the thump gets out, but you can turn the sound up louder. If you lengthen the attack to around 20-30 ms, you'll let the thump all the way out but then have to decrease overall volume.

For the highs, you can usually use a quicker attack setting and still get that click, if you want it.

So those are the major problem areas. The big bonus of this splitting approach is that you can really crank the piss out of each band. When they are summed together, they are still the same sound, but with each distinguishing factor of each band highlighted and framed. The 'apparent volume' is increased.

Now there's the question of character. What character do you want your kick to have?

I actually suggest stacking kicks and then bussing through these frequency bands, because you can take the elements of different kicks you like and combine them. Using envelopes in the premixing stage can allow you to make things even thicker.

I'll define 'thick,' because it's one of those terms engineers use that doesn't have a dictionary definition as much as a common-usage one.

Thickness, in this context, can refer to the density of frequencies over a span of time. In a clap sound, you might have a cluster around 200 hz, and another around 1-2khz. Maybe it has 2 transients at 30 ms apart. If you were to stack another sound with the same characteristics, the sound may get louder, but not much thicker. You may get a better result using a sound that 'fills in the holes' in timing and frequency. Since it doesn't magnify a pre-existing peak in the signal, you can then turn both up more.

Another tactic for creating character is to use parallel effects, including anything you could imagine. Compression is a popular one, because it can sound 'transparent', where you're just hearing the original sound amplified in some way. The idea is to muddy it up and then combine with the original, to get more crap on the signal and have it move around.

With all of these techniques, you'll have to develop an ear for frequencies and phasing, to make sure you don't end up with 'holes' in the image. You'll also have to bone up on your editing, to make sure you're starting the transients at the same time (and hopefully in phase).

That said, there is no 'wrong' technique in mixing, only bad taste. If you think I've misspoken, please chime in. I've just started to crystalize this information in my brain.

I open the floor to you and your kick drum mixing techniques.

[stuck]

Also, I realized this is a lot to think about for a lousy kickdrum, when you could just slap on a compressor.

With many DAWs, it's possible to set up bussing effects presets so that you only have to make the framework once.

Also, notice I haven't given any brand names of filters or compressors. That's because you can get a lot of use out of most compressors and filters, if you know how to use them. Charlie Parker played one of his most famous shows on a plastic saxophone because he had pawned his for drugs.

[Rincon]

Great post, stuck. I know you are specifically talking about kick drum here, but you hit on one of the fundamental aspects of sound engineering/mixing: almost all sounds (except 'pure' tones, like a synthesized sine wave) are composed of multiple frequencies which can be manipulated independently. One thing I find particularly challenging: you can manipulate the constituent frequencies of a given instrument/sound to make it sound fantastic on it's own, but that doesn't always mean it'll work right in the mix. I particularly have trouble with overlapping in the 200-800Hz and 800-3k ranges. Then again, I'm just a hobbiest-- you being the professional probably means you've got an established/preferred approach for this.

Question: in your experience, how does splitting a sound into multiple tracks to EQ and compress, then recombining them compare with using a multiband compressor and parametric on just one track? I'm lazy so I do the latter, but I'm wondering if the former is worth all the extra effort?

[stuck]

I know you are specifically talking about kick drum here, but you hit on one of the fundamental aspects of sound engineering/mixing: almost all sounds (except 'pure' tones, like a synthesized sine wave) are composed of multiple frequencies which can be manipulated independently.

Totally. You could see it like a 2-dimensional spectral plane. Your envelopes and compressor are your time-domain tools, while your filters and distortions are your frequency domain ones. You can zero in on any spectral point in a mix using this idea.


One thing I find particularly challenging: you can manipulate the constituent frequencies of a given instrument/sound to make it sound fantastic on it's own, but that doesn't always mean it'll work right in the mix. I particularly have trouble with overlapping in the 200-800Hz and 800-3k ranges. Then again, I'm just a hobbiest-- you being the professional probably means you've got an established/preferred approach for this.

I always have had problems in the 200 range. I don't know how good at mixing I am. Sometimes I feel competent, sometimes not. One thing I've realized recently is that I need to mix as I go and be pretty thorough.



Question: in your experience, how does splitting a sound into multiple tracks to EQ and compress, then recombining them compare with using a multiband compressor and parametric on just one track? I'm lazy so I do the latter, but I'm wondering if the former is worth all the extra effort?

You gain a bit in modularity and flexibility. Most multiband won't allow you to put resonant peaks in, or to forsake phase coherence for an effect. You can add fx to any chain with some benefits. You can widen the stereo field on the mids, without having to worry about the image in the center, for instance.

Also, you can stack different sounds for different bands. More control means more detail. Some of my kicks have 9-12 different elements. That'd be nonsense if you just jammed them all through a single bus.

Beyond that, it's up to you how much detail you want in your mix. The extreme approach would be to mix every sound individually on it's own track, but then you want to be able to make overall gestures of balance between the different bands. Gain staging and groupings become very important for an efficient session.

[Skinart]

This begs the question: How do you set up your leads. Do you use the same amount of detail for heavy mutation and expressiveness, or do you just reach for the mod and pitch wheel and hope for the best?


Someday, I hope to find an older controller keyboard with three wheels and faders. Peavey used to make a sexy looking monster but they don't seem to move around much.


Side note: Ever dabble in VAST programming? I usually get about 30 minutes in on my K2000 and my brain goes "Let's play with the Blofeld instead."

I ask because your post suggests a level of sophistication in audio synthesis exploration that would be able to get somewhere really interesting with the VAST architecture, without getting flustered in the middle because of hidden gain etc.

[stuck]

I have looked at kurzweil stuff.

I love modular structures the best. I use ableton now for making beats, but i've also used a Nord G2 quite a bit. I liked to abuse the Nord by trying to make it do everything it wasn't supposed to be able to do- sample, re-synthesize, process spectrally, granulate, make neural networks... I have an analog modular too.

I originally came at computer music from the exact opposite way- loads of notes, non-12tet tunings, polymeters. I did a whole album where the only timbre besides drums was a slightly modified sine wave.

The science of mixing is fairly new to me- I learned these concepts in the past two months, and haven't gotten around to applying it to anything other than massive hip hop beats. So I don't know how I'd approach a lead. Probably listen and try to define the sound and blend with the drums and bass.

[Faust06]

Nice post. Always appreciate production tips. Now I know who to ask.

[stuck]

Nice post. Always appreciate production tips. Now I know who to ask.

I'd love to hear other professionals' perspectives. Pan sonic and adymus really know what they're doing.

[pan_sonic_000]

I'd love to hear other professionals' perspectives. Pan sonic and adymus really know what they're doing.

Well, what you're describing here is musically oriented. I've studied a fair amount of production technique and understand what you're saying but I don't apply it the same way you do - I'm more into the science of game audio implementation and asset design than music. In many respects, we actually try to keep individual sounds somewhat thin and underwhelming on the lowend because most people don't play games with subs or even halfway decent stereos. It pretty much has to sound good on a laptop; if it's good there, it's going to be great on anything else. That said, we concentrate on low-mids and up and save the lows for special stuff like weapons or really big explosions. In the end, it's more than the sum of it's parts.

You'd probably be great at game audio, Stuck. You seem to have such an awesome grasp of sounds as a mosaic. That is, breaking them down into their respective frequencies and knowing how they'll all fit together as part of a whole. That's often the missing ingredient in game audio guys. They're library cut-and-pasters which is fine, but it's not design.

[stuck]

Thanks, it's definitely something I'd like to try in the future. I briefly approached the 'interactive music' idea with a friend who was working at xbox, but nothing came of it.

Yeah, I started out in film doing the cut and paste thing, and then got into sound design basically out of necessity. The closest things to sound designing a kick drum, actually, were doing explosions, fights, and monsters. The principle is often the same. It can be crazier in film, because the sounds aren't repeated, and we mixed in 5.1. There's also a lesser tolerance for unnatural sounds- because some chick is going to scream, and if your explosion/monster/punch doesn't sound right, everything goes immediately to shit. Then you get the director/producer telling you to make everything louder. EVERYTHING.

[Corbin]

http://flstudio.image-line.com/help/html/img_plug/plugin_fx_FruityParametricEQ2_80.jpg

Is absolutely fantastic when layering kicks (and more recently for me, dubstep wobble basses).

Are there any advantages in making a cut with a filter rather than an EQ? Both would essentially accomplish the same goal wouldn't they?

[stuck]

http://flstudio.image-line.com/help/html/img_plug/plugin_fx_FruityParametricEQ2_80.jpg

Is absolutely fantastic when layering kicks (and more recently for me, dubstep wobble basses).

Are there any advantages in making a cut with a filter rather than an EQ? Both would essentially accomplish the same goal wouldn't they?

That thing looks awesome.

Yeah, I'm using "filter" and "eq" interchangeably.

[bass_n_treble]

When I work with "heavy"/"brutal" or any thick guitar-laden bands, what I will do is notch out and lower by like -20 dB a very tight bandwidth where any other instrument can jump through the wall of distortion. The signal itself will be boosted on every frequency except the specific spots where bass, individual drums and cymbals, and vocals generally lie.

Unfortunately the audio professor I learned this off of got this technique from a Creed record. lol

EDIT: I took an audio trade school certification in '02-'03 and did live sound briefly, worked in a rehearsal studio and decided it was not the field for me, mostly because of the clientele.

[ciphersort]

side chaining ... rules

[Corbin]

That thing looks awesome.

Yeah, I'm using "filter" and "eq" interchangeably.

It is the Fruity Loops Parametric EQ 2. I abuse the hell out of it.

[Deckard]

I have gleaned a great method for crafting massive kick drums, from several great mixing engineers.

If you need a huge kick drum, you have to worry about a few things.

1. the sub frequencies, centering somewhere near 50 hz
2. the thump at somewhere between 100 and 200 hz
3. a click somewhere around 1-2k hz

...

After reading all that theory, I really want to know what it would sound like, side by side with the original recording. Do you have any examples of this technique that I could listen to?

[stuck]

After reading all that theory, I really want to know what it would sound like, side by side with the original recording. Do you have any examples of this technique that I could listen to?

I actually have the exact first time I tried to do this technique.

Unfortunately, INTPc hasn't been letting me upload things.

http://www.easy-share.com/1910050514/dookie this one!.mp3

In this example, you hear four cycles of a beat with the sounds raw from a record ("impeach the president" break), and then four cycles of the same thing beefed up with separate eq/compression lanes for each element.

You'll hear how there's a bit of comb filtering on the highs of the kick- that's because of phase decoherence around 2-3khz. It was my first try, and that effect didn't bother me too much, as it wasn't taking away from the beef of that kick.

The two samples peak at roughly the same amplitude.

It's an extreme example of cleaning something and sharpening it for a mix.

[Deckard]

Sweet, thanks. To my ears at least, it makes the kick sound more obviously sampled / electronic. Do you think it's possible to apply the technique so as to boost the impact of the kick, but retain its natural-ness?

[stuck]

Sweet, thanks. To my ears at least, it makes the kick sound more obviously sampled / electronic. Do you think it's possible to apply the technique so as to boost the impact of the kick, but retain its natural-ness?

Yeah, you could be more careful about it, for sure. If I were trying to make it natural, I'd smooth out the ambience via editing, and possibly mix in a compressed copy.

Also, if the only thing you needed was a beefier kick, you could do that with two bands, and leave the snare untouched.

Like I said, this is for a mix, where it helps to have focused sounds that can take up a smaller, tidier frequency range. If I get a chance in the next couple days, I'll make a better example, with more parts.

[stuck]

here's another one

http://www.easy-share.com/1910050865/mixlab poo.mp3

I fixed the phase, isolated frequencies, and then mixed in the original with some steep compression and eq.

I'm not happy with this either, the kick is a little flammy. (I think it's the transient of the compressed copy poking through- I should have run a high pass filter on it)

The point of it all, anyway, is that you can change things in infinite ways. If I were doing this for a song, I'd stack other kicks and snares against that, and make it sound different, possibly more 'natural'.

Do you hear how the second examples in each file sound a lot louder? They're actually peaking at the same level as the first examples.