Your thoughts on EQ and mixing

[skybax]

I'd put instrument choice and arrangement at the top. Everything should be musically in it's place, not stomping over each other...

I agree but this doesn't exactly fit in the category of EQ/mixing.

I think it does indirectly. As Ted Fletcher (creator of the Joe Meek line, which includes EQ and compressors) pointed out, EQ is a second line tool. You want to achieve as much "mix success" as possible first with arrangement and good raw recording technique, which I touched on in my previous post. I think that's what Garret is getting at.

Definitely yes, but while the topic subject nention only EQ/mixing, from my point of view choosing instruments and musical arranging should be taken for granted. I mean, it should be assumed that everything is musically in place in the first place - it's no use trying to save a bad arrangement by methods of mixing.

[skybax]

Actually, I just saw your tag line, though I'm not sure what psy-trance is. Does that use a lot of synths and heavy drum beats?

I'm not sure what you mean by heavy drum beats but yes in a nutshell it's fast basslines, a lot of synths, modulation, effects plus percussion and breakbeat loops.

[Frippertronix]

I'd put instrument choice and arrangement at the top. Everything should be musically in it's place, not stomping over each other...

I agree but this doesn't exactly fit in the category of EQ/mixing.

I think it does indirectly. As Ted Fletcher (creator of the Joe Meek line, which includes EQ and compressors) pointed out, EQ is a second line tool. You want to achieve as much "mix success" as possible first with arrangement and good raw recording technique, which I touched on in my previous post. I think that's what Garret is getting at.

Definitely yes, but while the topic subject nention only EQ/mixing, from my point of view choosing instruments and musical arranging should be taken for granted. I mean, it should be assumed that everything is musically in place in the first place - it's no use trying to save a bad arrangement by methods of mixing.

Yes, and even then, the recording process itself, even when done well, is far from perfect. I think an arrangement that just sort of takes care of itself in terms of creating a good recorded mix (not a live mix) would be, while not incredibly rare, not really common either.

[Frippertronix]

Actually, I just saw your tag line, though I'm not sure what psy-trance is. Does that use a lot of synths and heavy drum beats?

I'm not sure what you mean by heavy drum beats but yes in a nutshell it's fast basslines, a lot of synths, modulation, effects plus percussion and breakbeat loops.

By heavy, I mean a lot of sub-bass type synth kicks.

I'm not that familiar with all the genere breakdowns of electronica.

[Frippertronix]

So, to continue the EQ side of it: how many of you whip spectrum anlyzers onto each of your tracks and start looking at those to help guide the "interweaving" process while tweaking the mix EQ? By interweaving, I'm referring to the process of creating "spaces" in instruments or instrument groups for other instruments to fit into. How many of you seriously rely on spectrum analyzers to do that?

Another question: how many find it more useful to get the most critical EQ adjustments done while the tracks are still separate (with an EQ instance on each track), and how many of you prefer putting it all together and putting one EQ into the master bus and doing the most effective EQ work there?

[zimba]

Not each track, but I use Firium for analysis while EQing. The thing I like about Firium is that it comes in especially handy if your are trying to seperate identical sounds, ie a rhythm track and lead/rhythm track done with the same guitar. Firium has that inverse switch which is brilliant for those instances.

[gravehill]

It all depends on the style of the song and/or the genre. I do tend to use fair bit of EQ in my music (of which you can find examples by following the signature ) but only on individual tracks. I figure that since I'll be doing some EQing and compressing in the mastering stage anyway it's better to try to avoid them on the whole mix before that.

The first thing would definitely be the right instrumentation, no question about it. In mixing phase I consider volume and pan the main weapons. Sometimes eq and compressor is a must, especially as a tool to define the "distance" between listener and instrument. I do occassionally some "interweaving" EQing with bass and bass drum. For higher pitched instruments I rather prefer to work with the arrangement.

I'm not in habit of using spectrum analyzers on individual tracks but now that someone mentioned it, it would make sense as my monitoring system isn't the best possible.

[Musicmad]

I have recently started EQ'ing individual tracks with the full mix playing (as many pro's recommend), and have found it to be quite a revelation. You loose that precise idea of what the EQ does to the sound (which admitted feels a bit negative at first), however you gain so much more in terms of overall mix.

I recommend everybody to try it even though it might feel odd.

[xander]

[wikter]

The EQ is one of the most important processes to get fine masters.
The work of a compressor depends on the equalized signal it receives, low frecuencies can easily close the a compressor (and also a master multiband or limiter)...
The resonances are also another factor that can create problems while mastering, and only an equalizer can cut them properly.
A deesser, for example, is a combination of EQ and Dyn... and the final master EQ adjustments give the master/mix its own sound.
Of course, if you're not mastering, just mixing, the EQ should be used only over independent tracks, but not just to give them volume but taking the parts ot each sound you don't need to put on the mix.
f.e.
why do we need the 90Hz lower freqs on voice takes?

[sangha]

So, to continue the EQ side of it: how many of you whip spectrum anlyzers onto each of your tracks and start looking at those to help guide the "interweaving" process while tweaking the mix EQ? By interweaving, I'm referring to the process of creating "spaces" in instruments or instrument groups for other instruments to fit into. How many of you seriously rely on spectrum analyzers to do that?

Another question: how many find it more useful to get the most critical EQ adjustments done while the tracks are still separate (with an EQ instance on each track), and how many of you prefer putting it all together and putting one EQ into the master bus and doing the most effective EQ work there?

Generally speaking, I analyze all/most of my tracks, but mostly for my own edification, not necesarily for "interweaving" purposes.

I rarely put an EQ on a track "automatically", but I do that for guitars, which seem to always need some. Getting decent gtr sounds is something I'm still working on.

As far as interweaving goes, I don't do it unless I hear a problem. I add a track at a time, and if that track causes a problem, I eq either that track, or the one it's conflicting with. I run a spectrum analyser on both to get an idea of what the problem is.

I also tend to add effects to each track as I add them (but after recording them) but I tend to play with those as I add tracks. However, I don't add reverb or a compressor on the main outs until I'm done tracking. And while mixing, I tend to turn them off a lot of time.

[markroom]

hi heres a quick thought from me altough i think that the point about arrangement is maybe the most important- if something works musically it will mix itself u know-

then again if ur making electronic music a lot of times efects form part of the synthesis of the instruments and are not only enhaning them as they are in guitar music

right - look at your mix as a whole and see wot are the highest and lowest frequencies - in guitar music this would be the drum kit and the bass -
this is wot sets the scale up for the rest of sounds -so by making the drum kit brighter or muddier and by make the bass sub or low midsy- u can give ur self a better frame to work around-

well der u go-