bduffy's tip - cutting 500 hz. im actually amazed

[JumpingJackFlash]

Great tip on the 500hz dip and it seems to work for me on some sounds and instruments with electri-Q, my favourite EQ.

One thing i'm wondering though is the advice mention earlier from BT to highpass at 200hz on everything except drums and bass.......since i'm a newbie at EQ, would this be the correct curve for that?



It seems to remove an awful lot of punch from some synth sounds.

Correct curve yes, but 200Hz is way too high a cut-off point for most things in my opinion.

200Hz lies between the G and the G# a fourth below middle-C. - Cutting here is fine for oboes, flutes and other high things, but for anything lower; clarinet, alto sax, guitar, cello, horn, piano etc., you could possibly loose quite a lot of the sound. Synths work similarly, if the sound goes below the G# below middle-C, then it is advisable not to roll-off at 200Hz. (Although the harmonics will remain, the fundamental will be significantly dampened - if you want that sound fine, but if not, keep the cut-off point lower).

100Hz would be much better, but even that will be too high for some instruments.

As with all things, it depends on the mix of course. A very busy mix will need more rolling-off than a sparse mix. - Always use your ears and a healthy dose of common sense. Never stick rigidly to a one-size-fits-all formula.

[Hellbilly]

Thanks for the info.

I think i already knew it was too much at 200hz because it took way too much from the synth i tried it on so i guess i've learned that you cant apply one thing to everything. It sounded much better at around 100-150hz.

But at least i learned to make a proper highpass curve, which was my main goal.

[bduffy]

Mission accomplished!

Actually, I was just working on a mix where I was highpassing everything by-the-book, and I thought it sounded pretty good until I went back a couple versions (to bounce out another drum submix) and heard it without the highpasses; it was way better!

So I went back and set my passes to the lowest I could get away with, and that worked much better for this song. Actually, I just plain removed some EQ's altogether; f**k it, let the ME deal with it! Like JumpingJackFlash says: there is no one formula for them all.

[Dayl]

Hi All, Here is a good guide that I use for fine tuning. I see that it relates to a few of the questions being asked here. Please take note of the word 'guide'.


I hope it helps answer some questions and helps you as it has helped me











Cheers

Dayle

[bduffy]

Dayl, you and your long posts!

Cool! One can never have enough well-designed charts!

[Dayl]

Dayl, you and your long posts!

Cool! One can never have enough well-designed charts!

I know I know, at least its proactive

Its all ways good to have these refrences to fall back on.

[bduffy]

Dayl, you and your long posts!

Cool! One can never have enough well-designed charts!

I know I know, at least its proactive

Its all ways good to have these refrences to fall back on.

Absolutely! Then, one day, you won't even need 'em.

[Hellbilly]

Ahhh, i'm all for charts, being the newbie i am. Thanks for sharing Dayl.

[Sascha Franck]

Hellbilly, while 200Hz probably might be a good area to start your lowcuts at, I don't see a reason why it has to be such a drastic cut.
I usually try to cut everything as well in those areasy (yes, even my own, lovely played guitars ), but I simply may not lower the frequencies in question that much. Theoretically, there might not be much a guitar can do in, say, the 100Hz area, but entirely cutting it off at that frequency might just be to much - so while doing a cut somewhere between 100-200Hz, why not leave a bit there? To fatten up a bass. To not have it sound thin whenever it might play without any other instruments. To not make it sound too artificial.
Don't take my advice too serious, I'm a miserable mixer, but I seem to achieve a bit more of an "organic" sound when I don't cut *too* much. If I apply a drastic cut, it's really only in the "this sort of signal is just adding nonsense in this area" style.

So, in the guitar realm, I may cut everything below, say, 80Hz drastically, because very often it might just be *something* that even the guitarist in me doesn't relate to the real sound of it. And while I may as well cut below 200Hz as well, I would keep a fair share of what's happening there just so I wouldn't be pissed by the sound soloed.

I know, there's a lot of contradicting statements regarding such things, such as "man, you wouldn't believe how shitty/thin my guitars sound when being soloed, but as they never are, nobody will ever notice and it helps the mix". Valid, very valid.
Yet, I seem to prefer a more organic kind of sound. And in that case, each and every instrument should sound at least somewhat fine or "plausible" on its own. I mean, I'm not buying a 4x12" cabinet just for the fun of carrying it around with me. I actually *do* want the sound.
The same goes for really thick pads and the likes. And while I don't want them to be useless in a mix, while I also don't want mud - yes, I want them to be really thick.
I'd rather change some arrangement instead of thinning out things too much.

A practical example (not exactly on low cuts but along the same vein) regarding arrangement changes: When you have, say, a Rhodes kinda piano and some sort of jazzy sounding guitar, you will have a hell of a time separating them from each other in a mix. They are using a LOT of common frequencies, and it's exactly those frequencies that make them sound as what they are. In addition, both of them are often playing inside the same note range.
Now, while there might be some tricks, such as using a compressor on the guitar, accenting the attack while having everyhing else compressed, such as eq-ing the guitar in a way the string "buzz" (or brilliance) is enhanced, while having the Rhodes do it's mid-frequency-job - all that most likely still won't work in an arrangement when you really want to hear the two of them in their full glory (unless you want massive mid-range hits, which usually isn't exactly desired).
Bottomline: The only way to really get the two together in a mix is to change the arrangement. Instead of constantly hitiing the same accents, they could just use the gaps of the pattern the oher instrument is leaving. Problem solved. No EQ needed - ok, probably still some, but you'll catch my drift.

And really, this is what I notice on a lot of proper mixes: The arrangement is just right to begin with. Instruments are interacting and complementing each other, rather than only adding.
Yes, you will still have tuttis and the likes, but even in such cases there's fine differences in how to play (or arrange) whatever tutti.
Taking the example of the Rhodes and the jazzy guitar, there's no need for both of them to play full 4-5 part chords on tuttis. Maybe the guitar could just play octaves or even single notes. Maybe the Rhodes could just play thirds.

Just my 2 cents.

[defjamm]

Also, don't spectrum analyzers generally display some sort of 'blocks' in the lower frequencies, potentially exagerating these harmonics/EQ points you're talking about? (Particularily the 60Hz. AFAIK its best not to take a spectrum analyzer readout of that too seriously?) Thus trying to correct them is sort of futile? I could be completely wrong here, but very interested!

try out the free voxengo span and select a high block size...you'll exactly see the frequencies (the higher the block size the more accurate the results). also play around with the slope, you'll understand what it does once you'll try it.

http://www.voxengo.com/product/SPAN/

[ouroboros]

...Bottomline: The only way to really get the two together in a mix is to change the arrangement. Instead of constantly hitiing the same accents, they could just use the gaps of the pattern the oher instrument is leaving. Problem solved. No EQ needed - ok, probably still some, but you'll catch my drift.

And really, this is what I notice on a lot of proper mixes: The arrangement is just right to begin with...
Just my 2 cents.

I like this expression, Sascha. It's torture sometimes to eq out the beautiful sounds you just created to fit in the mix, and increasingly, I find I just need to arrange better. I actually like the overlapping instruments (gently) for a fuller sound sometimes, too. It's so hard when you find "that sound", but there is no way to get your already semi-complete song to work with it!

[djsubject]

Hi All, Here is a good guide that I use for fine tuning. I see that it relates to a few of the questions being asked here. Please take note of the word 'guide'.

This is courtesy of Future music mag. The best thing they ever put on a cover CD and the best thing I have found on ANY music mag CD.

I hope it helps answer some questions and helps you as it has helped me










I realise this is a long post (at least its not a flaming rant), so if you feel that it bears no relevance to the topic or would prefer to nut it out on a post by post basis, Gimmie a yell so that I can remove it.

Cheers

Dayle

cool post!!!

Where The f**k where you guys when i didn't know this shit & thought you had to buy a 20,000 magic box to lose muddiness


oh yea, the dood next hadn't got wireless back then


Subz

[MegaMisted]

The 500hz Mid range is important more than you think....In big system without the 500hz the sounds won't have "attack".

[loopdon]

Mission accomplished!

Actually, I was just working on a mix where I was highpassing everything by-the-book, and I thought it sounded pretty good until I went back a couple versions (to bounce out another drum submix) and heard it without the highpasses; it was way better!

So I went back and set my passes to the lowest I could get away with, and that worked much better for this song. Actually, I just plain removed some EQ's altogether; f**k it, let the ME deal with it! Like JumpingJackFlash says: there is no one formula for them all.

I have experienced that very often myself. Just when you think you've really done everything perfectly you switch back to see how marvellous your work was and notice i didn't actually improve. I reckon it's more about knowing when NOT to apply eq etc.

[Barbarossa]

I want to add a thought, that is quite fundamental, but was a big problem for me for many years.

Beginners tend to use sounds they like when played, and then expect to shape it into another sound they have in mind.
It is important that the rough sound already has the feeling, vibe, you expect from it in the end.
Sadly many interviews in the magazines, where people always tell, how they mangled the original sound to achieve a certain result, lead in the complete wrong direction. That you can shape complete new sounds out of the original ones. IMO that is only valid for sound destruction. But for good main sounds, the best possible source material is necessary.

If you want a certain crisp dance piano sound, the sample or the synth has to deliver it immediately, when you play it for the very first time. The EQ afterwards in the process is only to put it into the context, make it sound more hifi. But the general feeling, should already be present in the original. Btw, this can be best identified not by playing with sounds for minutes until you love them, but only by one or two seconds. IMO it's the first moment that decides about the quality of a sound.

That's why programming synths and sound layering is still very good advice - besides a big and well organized library.