Im looking for some picture where you can see a frequency chart and where which instruments go where for electronic music..I mostly found it for pop or classic music, but not for dance/electronic music

Something like this but more suggestion on instruments/drums/percs etc on each frequency section.

p.s when making a song full Ive read that you should occopy the full frequency spectrum..Hence you should layer stuff like synths..With layers does this mean that it layers differents octaves? Because it doesnt make sense to put more layers where they all have their body in one frequency section?

For example if i have a leadsynth playing its fundemental in 500 hz and up why put another instrument there since it will begin to mask eachother? Or are layering in individual frequency sections nice? Would like some suggestions and ideas

It doesn't really work like that in edm... too many different wacky sources and samples to abide by traditional instrument frequency standards.

For instance, I might want a few things going on between 500-1k because I like the way they blend together. Masking isn't always a bad thing if it is done to tase.

That said, a good method if your trying to mix this way would be to compare your synths to what instruments it sounds like, and make the necessary eq adjustments.

Here are some more instrument frequency charts you might find useful... but still, I don't think this is a good method for edm composition..

And then there's your ears. heh

Yeah maybe you are right..But how do you mean that it isnt a bad things if its done to taste..Could you give an example?

Should you?

Where did you read it? Who said it?

The problem with one-liners like these is that they inadequately sum up years of experience and they gloss over the exceptions. They're summaries for problems that people've tried to solve for quite a long time. I mean, you've got this interesting chart here - Fletcher–Munson curves - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What if you get the picture correct, but it sounds like crap? Or it sounds slightly off?

What are you going to trust in that case, and how are you going to continue from that?

Let me be blunt for a minute: your post history shows that you've started a few dozen threads asking about these details and get answers for that, and that's absolutely great, because it means 1) you want to learn and 2) lots of people are willing to share their knowledge.

However, none of that helps you out if it doesn't get people's asses moving, and focusing on things like thisis not going to fix the problem of people not dancing; worst of all, it'll just keep you in the loop of asking questions instead of fixing the problem.

The dancefloor is not 30 likes on SoundCloud.

Have you tested your tracks on the actual dancefloor already?

What was the response?

yeah, forget these charts because it is different every time

fundamental rule is to use your ears and make sure that frequencies aren't clashing

also don't forget about the stereo spectrum (panning, chorus effects, unison spread, mid/side eqing, etc)

d.ramirez in his masterclass video. Yeah I guess you get kind of mind****ed with all the analysis tool for producing tracks that you dont really listen to them, I've started "looking" a lot more :/

bass low bit
sub even lower bit
pads middle bit
lead high bit
arps all over the freakin place!!! ><

Regarding that they dont clash a previous commenter said that masking could be good if its done tasteful, what do you think about this?

And avoiding that frequencies arent clashing how do you mean? Do you mean that you pick sounds/octaves with different frequency fundamentals for each instrument? So everything has its own pocket? Or if the bassline is the mainlead it will take up pretty much the whole frequnecy spectrum so to speak?

I remember making this for Future Music a few years back!



[

The clashing part is something where visual tools really help. I must've posted this video a dozen times already - thanks for ohmicide for bringing it to my attention originally.



Avoiding clashes; Imagine a bassline and high-pitched synth lead. By default their frequency ranges do not overlap much - so you may not even need any EQ at all to make 'm coexist and let both appear to be equally loud.

However, kick and the bassline occupy the same space. To avoid undesired peaks at the spot where they overlap, they both have to be reduced in volume, or they both have to sacrifice a part of their frequency range. This is why sidechaining is such an easy trick; the kick pushes away the volume of the bassline in so you avoid peaks by default.

I've found this to be an almost incredibly useful frequency chart over the years. It has seen me through every conceivable production scenario I've faced so far.

following 'rules' and using 'charts' may hurt you.. it's better to try and experiment and put up your mix for others to hear.. well at least it worked for me and got mixes tight...

Playing music for others is the quickest way to learn what is wrong with them. Any time I play a new track for a friend I immediately hear things I didn't hear before, just because they were there listening with me. Then of course there is the important feedback they give you, which always helps, as long as they know what they're talkin' bout.

Exactly.. also posting your music online for others to hear helps too... when they know what their talking about of course...

yeah, screw charts. do what sounds good to your ears

Try using hi pass filters, I'm amazed how few people use them nowadays. Don't worry how the track sounds soloed when its hi passed, listen to it in the mix. Everything can't have all the "low end" in it. Panning is another aspect to keep in mind as well as frequency. Experiment and find what works best for you

correct!

Silence is bad.

In case you have nothing to say in a specific frequency rage (e.g.: no fresh ideas for a snare drum pattern),

just put a hat as a placeholder.

It works on trains, should woork on tracks as well

I hipass everything

and then I hipass it again on the group bus if needed

sometimes even 3 times; before distortion, after distortion and on the group bus

Word

Just don't let the low end eat your mix.

Best chart of all time.

Four years later and a quick Google on ”frequency guide for elektronic music” and the first one is THAT Future Music illustration I had in mind.

Of course I know where most parts goes. But starting today.
I AM structure. And things like this is just perfect!

But the biggest one, if not THE only thing to get in my head...
F I N N I S H Y O U R T R A C K S

No more 3 hoars on a kickdrum. Hehe...

They'd probably fall off anyway

Ha ha Typing on iPhone with 2 hoours slip

because of the 2 hoours??

Old topic, but I'll answer anyway...

It's not always just about the frequencies, but also about where the sounds lie. Not in the frequency spectrum but in the timeline. Another thing to consider is the lenght/envelope of the sounds. Most of the time drum samples need to have their envelopes edited to make them shorter and sometimes transient designers are very useful tools too.

If all of your sounds are on top of each other all the time and they are also quite long sounds, mixing it can be a nightmare.

That's why you should probably try to fix these issues before they even are issues, ie. when you compose and do sound design.

As a graphical example, here's one bar from a song, currently silent:

1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . .4 . . .

Now if you but a big booming kick in there it will look like this instead:

BOOMBOOMBOOMBOOM

Obviously, no room for a bassline anywhere, unless it occupies a very different frequency range, which might work for drum&bass but for house and techno it can be a bit difficult.

As another example, here's a track with a very short kick:

B...B...B...B...

As you can see, you suddenly have tons of space in the bass frequencies to put hard hitting, loud, bassy bassline in there.


Of course, in reality you have to balance everything as too short sounds aren't very powerful.

The point being, a quality mixdown starts with well thought of music (in terms of every note being in the right place and not causing huge frequency clashes) and well thought of sound design. If everything is super massive and loud all the time, even true masters have difficult time making it work when mixing.

This whole thread subject smells of "painting by numbers".

I've never heard anything so ridiculous in my entire life as "filling in the gaps in the waveform". Where on earth did that idea come from? Whatever happened to COMPOSING music with only the bits that are needed for it to sound MUSICAL (including silence!) and then using your ears and EQ to balance it all out?

It's one step away from getting software to automagically create the tracks for you based on instrumentation.

An instrument doesn't occupy just one set frequency range - well, unless you've never heard of EQ that is. Any instrument can be (and should be) manipulated via EQ until it sounds good in the mix. Take a vocal and guitar, for example. The guitar's bass can be boosted to add warmth to the track, the mid reduced so it doesn't fight with the vocal, top-end added if you want a less mellow sound and the vocal adjusted to balance with the guitar - or vice versa.

Don't learn about how to make music by formulae, learn to compose exactly what's needed (notes and rests) and then learn to use EQ and compression for placement. It won't matter what instrumentation you have then as you'll always be able to balance it out.