It depends of course but I just boost the notch all the way, say +24 db and move it along until I find any unpleasant frequencies and notch them out, compare to make sure I haven't done something wrong, but most of the time its amazing how much better it sounds.

Also don't be afraid to cut out bass frequencies too, as for example you might find in your bassline frequencies that don't belong to the root note and are actually conflicting with it, I think this is because synth filters are introducing resonances.

And another thing, you don't always need such low bass, even on kicks, sometimes things can really tighten up if you notch out some very low frequencies on the kick or bass, or even do a 48db shelf cut, which sounds great for electronic music.

I also search for the good bits using a notch, especially on the bass, so when I find that spot on the bassline that sounds really good I may just use a notch to bring it up a few dB.

The main thing you should watch out for is volume drops when it changes note. This technique has been used for ages in dance music though:

You have a bassline, you get it to sound just right with bass boosts compression etc, in dance music it will stay on the same note for a while until the main melody or chorus part, at which point it will change, now it might contain 3 notes, and the third one (for example) may sound louder and boomier than the other two. You can just find that particular freq and use a notch to
bring it down a fee dB without it affecting the rest.

I've always remembered this mix for it's uneven bass

http://youtu.be/IYFKYMZ3fsU?t=2m42s

Check out F at 3:53 and how much louder than the other bass notes it is. Odd coming from such a good mix otherwise.

Very helpful suggestions! I will definitely try incorporating those ideas. For some reason I've always had an irrational fear of narrow q. I think I get overly influenced by how curves appear visually and worry about harmful side effects from extreme adjustments. Starting to make a lot of sense to me though how a few narrow boosts and cuts on frequencies harmonically related to the fundamental could be much punchier and more musical than a single wide shelf or bell.

I think I may experiment with using two eqs per track, one to make narrow cuts and boosts followed by a second one for broader changes.
Great example. Played the hell out of the original cd single of that track way back when.

You and me both my friend, I still remember where I was the first time I ever heard it!

Evo - cuts are so more useful and workable than boosting. EQ boosting by more than 1 or 2db puts you in headroom never-neverland. If needed; push the whole recorded part by 1 or 2 db, then cut some of the non-fundamental frequencies dramatically

peace

Yes, I've been working on a piano track within a busy mix and am finding that seeking out the less desirable frequencies and applying narrow cuts to them is really increasing the clarity. Along with small narrow boosts to a couple of the tastier harmonics. Very big difference, especially in how it fits in the mix. Seems so obvious now I can't believe it's taken me so long to figure out the usefulness of narrow Q cuts!

Am loving Voxengo Gliss EQ for this with the optional dynamic response and note indicators in the display.

Does thin out the sound somewhat though so not sure I would use it as much with solo instruments.

Thanks to all for the shared knowledge!

For me EQ is the one thing I still find frustrating, so much so that recently I have begun considering paying someone to mix my music for me so I can focus on composition. I haven't given up totally though and I'm hoping that EQ will "click" with me eventually. I understand the basics of EQ and I can get a fairly decent sound but I know there is a more advanced level of EQ use that still eludes me. I can be technically minded when I need to be but for the most part I do things by ear. For the most part I hi-pass most things and apply a broad cut around the 300-400Hz range on most instruments.

The main thing that baffles me is how one goes about EQing a sound that moves around the frequency spectrum a lot such as a moving bassline or a synth lead, a piano part, chords or melodies?

What is the standard approach? Apply a broad cut/boost or have 6 or 7 precise cuts/boosts in the right places? What is the right place? Where resonance occurs? Do you cut the frequencies of notes that aren't used? Or boost the ones that are?

You see my confusion?

I Can't vouch for this as I haven't got it yet but it is on sale and could make a better spectral traffic cop of us !!!



http://www.groove3.com/str/EQ-Explained.html



On sale too!

I'll check it out today, I have a pass

My advice:

1. Dont hipass for no good reason, depending on your EQ type and what frequency you are hipassing at you could make a really weak mix like this

2. dont always cut the same frequencies on all instruments, I mean you can, but don't do things unless they need it, this is how you will create mix problems

3. If a sound is moving a lot, just cut out the resonant peaks where you hear them.

If the source is good not too much EQ should even be required, maybe even none.

Thanks for the tips!

http://rhythminmind.net/1313/?p=361

also read the comments by dave gamble

do your tests with a white or pink noise track

assign an EQ to it and have a decent analyzer after it

make sure if the EQ's knob says "5khz" check if it is actually "5khz" that is being boosted

null it with other plugins and you'll see how Most of them will be the exact same thing.

the only difference there will be are Q-values and slopes, so its a preset thing.

however some EQ plugins Add further processing in order to sound different


its like saying Exs24 sample-playback sounds better than kontakt.

Dave added quite a bit of information here:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5155075#515507 5

Neat stuff, this quote from Dave sums up my opinion on it all though:

"A crucial point that's often ignored is that these vintage analogue EQs that we get excited about are not interesting because they're old, nor because they're analogue, but because THOSE are the designs that were good enough to be remembered. What this tells us is that the interactions and ranges, and overall workflow are good. When what you're looking for is a tool, a well-designed tool has value. If an EQ makes things sound good in 10 seconds, you can fairly judge that it's a better-designed EQ than one that takes 10 minutes to get a good sound. Sure the maths is still the maths, as you've said, but what matters is not the set of shapes it CAN achieve (which, neglecting >10k, is generally the same set), but which set of shapes the workflow guides you towards."

For me it's not about whether it can be done with a stock EQ, but whether I'd sooner spend 1 minute with an EQ oe 5. I mean without an analyser I couldn't even replicate any EQ, and you have to own said EQ to use it in an analyser, or have it on trial which is time limited. It would be an absurd way to work and I'd sooner spend the money and save the time. In my mind I am paying for the knowledge of the designer. Eq's are like presets I guess.

Having said that, when the budget is tight it is a more difficult question.

I need to add something here, when trying to use BX_digital_V2 for notches it gave me a really muddled obviously notched sound, its Q's obviously don't get that narrow. I love its broader curves though.

So just be aware if you notch and it sounds odd it could be the EQ doesnt get narrow enough.

Interestingly the Waves Q10 is on sale for less than $10 right now, and it stated it's Q range is from .5 to 100, 100 being narrower.

I looked at Equality which is 0.5 to 50, does that suggest waves Q10 can make even more transparent notches?

Studio One Pro EQ is pretty much invisible at its narrowest Q's imo, totally natural sound just gets rid or boosts the target frequency.