EQ when mixing

[bduffy]

Get some better monitors and use your ears

I just don't get comments like that; is that really practical advice on equalisation???


Great advice from everyone. Remember to watch out for super-low frequencies below 40hz which could add needless gain information to your mix and result in less headroom for mastering.

Here's a wicked article on the subject (be sure to check out their other articles too):

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Aug01/a ... singeq.asp

[sangha]

All this can pass electronic music mixing, as for accoustic instruments this is very, very wrong.

I primarily work with accoustic sounds so, I´d be very interested in knowing how and why it is so...

Every accoustic instrument have his range of frequencys ( vocals +/- 500-3200hz etc.) and no one can't change it unless you want to do it on perpose, it'll sound shitty though.

IMO, scamme is right when it comes to acoustic *music* (ex bluegrass, folk), but when acoustic *instruments* are used in "non-acoustic" music (ex. an acoustic gtr in a rock song), it's OK to mess with the EQ of the AcGtr because rock doesn't make as big a deal over the "naturalness" of a sound. In fact, rock often places more value on unnatural sounds.

[M'Snah]

Hi Apan

Get some better monitors and use your ears. It all comes down to that anyway!

Really? And how do you know which monitors to buy? and how to use your ears? It's useful to first have a clue about what you're doing and how to use your ears! The problem of many newbies here - including myself! - is that they don't have the experience / intuition / critical listening abilities to hear exactly what is wrong and what is to be done.

[Space Boy]

'Space Boy' could be useful here. No need to use your ears or your monitors.

[bduffy]

'Space Boy' could be useful here. No need to use your ears or your monitors.

yeah, that is one super-cool plug-in, works very well. One should learn the basics too, of course.

[IIRs]

Get some better monitors and use your ears

I just don't get comments like that; is that really practical advice on equalisation???

He's right, but its not very helpful to a newbie..

Good monitoring is critical, but the most important thing is to train your ears. I suggest you start by loading a bunch of your favourite tracks into your DAW or audio editor, and experiment with cutting and boosting different frequencies. Try to learn how different frequencies affect the mix, so you can recognise tonal imbalances in your own material when you hear them.

Also note which instruments are affected most by particular boosts: 50Hz might affect the kick drum predominantly, while 100Hz is more bass guitar.. this will help you start to identify the important regions for each instrument that need to be kept clear of other stuff (cutting 90Hz on the guitars might be a better way to improve the bass sound than boosting 90Hz on the bass for example)

Also, think about arrangements: there are good reasons why certain combinations of instruments are more common than others.. a symphony orchestra has evolved over hundreds of years to solve the spectral jigsaw puzzle we now try to solve with EQ: if you can choose your instruments and arrange their parts well enough (and record them well enough) to require no EQ at all, you will have won!

[M'Snah]

'Space Boy' could be useful here. No need to use your ears or your monitors.

I don't know all your 'boys' by name, but I think quite a few can be useful here

[scamme]

This
is pretty important table from the article that bdaffy postet a link to. The problem is that the range on this table stops at 4000hz.

[IIRs]

The problem with that chart is that it only shows fundamental frequencies, not harmonics.. and it is usually the harmonic content that gives a sound its character. (How many real instruments produce pure sine waves?)

For example, you might reasonably conclude from that chart that the way to get a full round deep bass guitar sound is to boost its lowest fundamental at around 30Hz.. but you would be wrong!

That chart is very interesting, but not as useful as well trained ears & accurate monitors.

[M'Snah]

Albino and Kubik are not on that chart

[scamme]

[IIRs]

[mystahr]

It's like working with magical instruments. A good eq can make tracks and songs come to life.

But for the most part it is using your ears and try and be subtle about it. At least to me it is; still a hocus-pocus area though.

[bduffy]

The problem with that chart is that it only shows fundamental frequencies, not harmonics.. and it is usually the harmonic content that gives a sound its character. (How many real instruments produce pure sine waves?)

For example, you might reasonably conclude from that chart that the way to get a full round deep bass guitar sound is to boost its lowest fundamental at around 30Hz.. but you would be wrong!

That chart is very interesting, but not as useful as well trained ears & accurate monitors.

I think the point of the chart is so that you know where to cut, not boost. You know, the golden rule of EQ: cut unecessary frequencies, boost gently, if at all (not that I listen).

Again, yeah, you've got to let your ears guide you - but if you don't know what 100hz even is, how are you going to know which knob to turn on your $1200 EQ? That's how the chart is useful; it can help you memorize (very generally) what frequencies correspond to which instrument range.

[tee boy]

I prefer to use EQ only as a last resort in most situations. For example, say I want to brighten up a hi hat - I'd rather layer another one on top than start boosting EQ. However, there are times when EQ is essential for me:

- I do a lot of LP cuts in my music. This is very important if you have quite dense mixes. Each part can have its own space in the mix, but often it is necessary to remove lower freqs. Even if this isnt a noticable problem, i still tend to filter out upto 150Hz on most tracks.

- Notch EQ is also a very good technique to get used to. Lets say you want to make a real big bottom end on your bass. Some might start boosting sub 100Hz in an attempt to achieve this. This is a little naive - its better to notch out proble freq's higher up, then simply turn up the gain! By combining notch EQ and filtering you can get around most mix problems (it wont fix a bad arrangement though!).

- Ofcourse, there are times when a broad shaping EQ is necessary. This can be the case in certain style more than others. For example, if you have to very dense parts in similar ranges yet require seperation, then shaping the sounds with RQ curves can do the trick. One style that uses this technique a lot would be your typical commerical hard trance, where big unison leads and pads need shaping. Another would be your big guitar rock styles. The problem is that this technique tends to require nice EQ's, hence why many rock / metal engineers hate computer EQ's. Its not uncommon in rock mixes to have quite extreme EQ curves, and this can sounds shite with EQ's plugins. One plug that can do this well (IMO) is Waves Q-clone, yet Iv be unable to find another to fit the bill (and IV heard engineers complain that this plug isnt really up to it).


So, I think the best way to use EQ in a mix is really to weigh up the pros / cons of digital EQ's, and tailor your engineering style to compliment. Like i said, I prefer to use layering and filtering that big shaping EQ. This works because i have access to loads of audio tracks and graphic editing (i'd imagine that working this way would be alot more hassle in the analog world). And when I do need a more extreme curve, I make sure i use either a good hardware EQ or a plug thats up to the task.

Finally, I just want to say that imo setting up significant shaping EQ on the 2buss or master file is in 99.9% of cases a big mistake. Again, digital EQ's arent best suited to this task. And also, these problems a FAR easier sorted out in the multitrack. Its very easy to sucked into this thinking of boosting freq's on your stereo mixdown, but you're on shacky ground trust me!