Is this TOO MUCH bass??!! HELP!!!!

[JOHNNY CHINGAS]

SOunds good. Not too much. It fits the song.

 

[lbanks]

The bass is cool.

 

[lemur821]

It is pretty close to too much...could stand to be taken down slightly.

I think that for this style it's just right. I would leave it where it is.

 

[Eric Perry]

I think it's perfect. When I think *too much*, I think of No Doubt's Tragic Kingdom disc. The bass level is over the top... He's kick-ass though, so it's worth it.

 

[DWBass]

It's fine. I wish all rock music had a more prominent bass mix! But I may be biased as I come from a funk/r&b background where the bass is a major part of the song and is very prominent!

 

[Josh Ryan]

It's up there but it's fine. I would have changed it up a little depending on the part a bit, but no worries.

 

[Jamiebass]

Great tune, the bass definetly needs to be prominent, however, IMHO, I would drop about 3-4 dBs in the 100-200 Hz region with a moderate width. You can do this youre'self with pretty much any recording/editing software, since you would only be SUBTRACTING a few dB off the mix itself, you don't need any marvelous plug-ins. By doing so, you would keep the bass up front and sub-woofer shakin', but it would be tamed down a LITTLE.

Great groove, by the way

 

[JamesM]

i like it. Bass is at a good level i think, but i was listening on my headphones, so i'm not sure what it would sound like through my stereo speakers, i'm sure its fine tho
Keep up the good work

 

[jenderfazz]

With headphones (it's pretty late right now), it sounds very good. Every instrument is pretty clear. To be safe, you could probably lower some of the bass frequencies (as jamiebass suggested) but in generally your bass will still pop out and sound prominent. And yeah, it sounds pretty good this way!

EDIT: Listened to it just now with my computer speakers and subwoofer. It's still clear-ish but it does get a bit boomy on the low end. In a car or another high-bass environment it might be too much bass.

 

[PikeoftheLake]

Yeah I'm hearing what you're hearing... I think. The bass could be turned back just a touch.

If you weren't listening for it though you wouldn't hear it.

As an aside, awesome tune and awesome sound!

 

[anonymous_111514]

you're asking the wrong group of people if it's too much bass seriously though I like it! good sounding mix.

 

[Chipsonfire]

For most of the song it sounds perfect, but there are a few places where it seems to be drowning everything else out. Good mix though

 

[Feast]

I think its great, cool tone and its not to loud IMO

 

[nastyn8c]

Just the way I like it! Good job playing!

 

[snoopyjc]

you're asking the wrong group of people if it's too much bass seriously though I like it! good sounding mix.

I agree - never ask a bass player if there is too much bass! We're biased! That said, I think you have too much "midrange" on the bass - EQ the bass channel and cut 200-400HZ down - keep the "low bass" the same but cut the "presence" to pull it back in the mix so the guitar and vocals have more room.

--joe Link Removed

 

[deaf pea]

...IMHO, I would drop about 3-4 dBs in the 100-200 Hz region with a moderate width...By doing so, you would keep the bass up front and sub-woofer shakin', but it would be tamed down a LITTLE.

Excuse ME, but what do you base these comments on? Obviously NOT any real-life experiences in actual PROFESSIONAL RECORDING!

Dropping 3-4 dBs "in the 100-200 Hz region with a moderate width" is REALLY A LOT of change . . . You "would keep the bass up front"? . . . I don't think so . . .

IN-MY-NOT-SO-VERY-HUMBLE-OPINION and EXPERIENCE . . .

FWIW, EQ changes at the mastering (NOT mixing) stage are usually measured in 1/2 dBs . . .


BTW, the mix sounds good as is . . . don't F*** it up!
The voice IS a little bit low in volume in a couple of places where he's singing in a low range, pitch wise.
But remember, changing ANYTHING in a mix WILL affect everything else in the mix . . . like I said "don't F*** it up!"

 

[Jamiebass]

Excuse ME, but what do you base these comments on? Obviously NOT any real-life experiences in actual PROFESSIONAL RECORDING!

Dropping 3-4 dBs "in the 100-200 Hz region with a moderate width" is REALLY A LOT of change . . . You "would keep the bass up front"? . . . I don't think so . . .

IN-MY-NOT-SO-VERY-HUMBLE-OPINION and EXPERIENCE . . .

FWIW, EQ changes at the mastering (NOT mixing) stage are usually measured in 1/2 dBs . . .


BTW, the mix sounds good as is . . . don't F*** it up!
The voice IS a little bit low in volume in a couple of places where he's singing in a low range, pitch wise.
But remember, changing ANYTHING in a mix WILL affect everything else in the mix . . . like I said "don't F*** it up!"

I certainly don't doubt you're experience, quite an impressive resume you've got there. For you're information, I was taught by some serious pro's as well, I've got a degree in audio engineering (that'll come back as a quote to haunt me....) and I have been through EXTENSIVE listening tests, blahblahblah. In my listening environment, the LOW end sounded boomy. Boom is good, but it sucks up headroom. YES I know quite a bit about mastering (I'd LOVE to debate about half dBs, another time maybe ) Bringing down around 100Hz a few dB would definitely keep the bass in you're face while keeping the low mids prominent.

DEAF PEA,

Now, why can't we be a little more civilized? It definitely was NOT my intention to bash anyone, I hope you don't reply to every opposing opinion as you replied to mine, after all it is a matter of opinion.

"Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends??? "

Relax a little.

EDIT: Maybe 1-2 dB down. 90-100 Hz....................."Deaf" pea....how ironic......."0

 

[deaf pea]

I would drop about 3-4 dBs in the 100-200 Hz region with a moderate width.

EDIT: Maybe 1-2 dB down. 90-100 Hz

Those 2 quotes are MILES apart in how those EQ changes would affect the relative prominence of the bass instrument in the mix . . . I don't have any problem with your "revised" suggestion . . .

DEAF PEA, Now, why can't we be a little more civilized? It definitely was NOT my intention to bash anyone, I hope you don't reply to every opposing opinion as you replied to mine, after all it is a matter of opinion. "Why can't we be friends, why can't we be friends??? "Relax a little.

Hey, I DID start out with "Excuse ME" . . . and I guess I AM an "old grouch" at times . . . but I was concerned that THAT MUCH EQ (as you had stated in your 1st post - an octave-wide drop of 3 or 4 dBs in the low-mids) would change the mix too much. And I REALLY didn't want any inexperienced "engineer" to blindly follow your suggestion . . .

IMO, there really isn't anything else constantly playing in that range . . . neither the drums NOR the guitar have much energy in those low mids. I think that the bass instument COULD have been a little "clearer", but remember, that would imply a need to fill in that frequency range with something else ("beefier" snare? or maybe more lo-mids for the guitar).
THAT'S why I said that the mix "works" as is, without lowering the bass instrument level . . .

YMMV

 

[deaf pea]

"Deaf" pea....how ironic.......

Yeah, that's been my nickname since the late '70's, when I COULD hear OK . . .

I DO notice (mostly when using headphones) less high end response with my right ear (that's the one that's closest to the drummer), but that hasn't slowed me down TOO much as a multiple-Grammy Award-winning recording/mixing/mastering engineer . . .

eight so far

 

[joelb79]

I think its ok, but there is a bit of a bump in the mid-bass that I would have traded for under 100hz energy. By a bit, i mean 1-2db, anything else would make it sound like a different bass.

But the mix is pretty good. Coming soon I get to make these same decisions.