KVR Audio

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:40 am

ouroboros wrote:oh, I meant if the songs were the the same, just eq'd and mixed differently, then you could not scoop out the mids at the beginning, and gradually increase the "scoop" by the first verse. I don't know if that kind of thing is done for these purposes, though.

Sure, could be - why not?

I think I just have to fly the ambience back into the drums and get the guitars beefed up a bit more. Thanks for pointing it out, though; I was suspecting that newer mix was too clean.

guitarzan · Post by **guitarzan** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:32 am

Left Headphone wrote:
bduffy wrote:Is there a bigger picture there?
Here is the article:
http://www.harmony-central.com/articles ... ous_mixes/

Wow, I had no idea Craig Anderton was writing for Harmony Central!! I've been reading the gear reviews there for several years but never checked out the articles. I have Craig Anderton's old guitar fx building book and his home recording book. I always really looked forward to his monthly column in Guitar Player magazine...man, that was like 30 years ago!!

There's a whole pile of articles by him there: http://www.harmony-central.com/articles/ and there's nobody else I'd rather learn this stuff from!! Great find, thanks for posting the link!!

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:42 am

Yeah, I'll have to dig into those articles tomorrow.

pricer · Post by **pricer** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 3:44 pm

I've read that THX-approved audio is given a subtle cut at 2.5 kHz to be more accommodating for living room acoustics.

Bob Katz's Finalizer guide is always good reference - http://www.tcelectronic.com/media/bobkatz.pdf as well as his book on mastering, a lot of his book goes over my head, but it does come with this beautiful frequency guide, detailing every instrument range you'll ever need.

Epiphany · Post by **Epiphany** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:15 pm

bduffy your examples illustrate the benefits pretty bloody well.

All I can give is a dance music perspective, in that the more major elements I scooped at this freq, the clearer the mix. Clarity being the key; i hadnt realised it but clarity is what my mixes have always lacked.

With regard to parameters, I actually found the variability pretty unforgiving as far as frequency, amount and Q are concerned. Roughly, the Q shown on the above pic worked best; frequent a/bing confirmed this for me. Even setting the EQ at 400 or 600 produced inferior results, and strangest of all, this applied to ALL the major elements of this mix. I dont have golden ears nor anechoic monitoring, but to my ears, more refined indiviudal nothcing to parts was also inferior in creating this particular sense of clarity and space.

To those who say this is the classic hifi smile curve; no, it isnt. 500 hz is not the mid point for such a spectral balance, and besides the Q value is significnatly tighter in this technique than on "humanity's first EQ preset".

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:36 pm

Epiphany wrote:bduffy your examples illustrate the benefits pretty bloody well.

All I can give is a dance music perspective, in that the more major elements I scooped at this freq, the clearer the mix. Clarity being the key; i hadnt realised it but clarity is what my mixes have always lacked.

With regard to parameters, I actually found the variability pretty unforgiving as far as frequency, amount and Q are concerned. Roughly, the Q shown on the above pic worked best; frequent a/bing confirmed this for me. Even setting the EQ at 400 or 600 produced inferior results, and strangest of all, this applied to ALL the major elements of this mix. I dont have golden ears nor anechoic monitoring, but to my ears, more refined indiviudal nothcing to parts was also inferior in creating this particular sense of clarity and space.

To those who say this is the classic hifi smile curve; no, it isnt. 500 hz is not the mid point for such a spectral balance, and besides the Q value is significnatly tighter in this technique than on "humanity's first EQ preset".

I always understood the classic hifi to be a big dip more in the 1k zone, but whatever. I too found cutting at 500 more useful than anywhere else, but I'm still getting used to it. Like you said, it just brings more clarity to the mix. I just wish I knew this years ago.

pricer · Post by **pricer** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 5:50 pm

i've always interpreted the hi-fi eq smile as the Baxandall curve -

60Hz/0.29Q - 12kHz/0.34Q

feyshay · Post by **feyshay** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:03 pm

I have usually used high passes (depending on the source) from 60 to as high as 500. Higher dB cuts the below 60, gentler above.
High pass makes more sense to me, why are you using a different filter?

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 6:20 pm

feyshay wrote:I have usually used high passes (depending on the source) from 60 to as high as 500. Higher dB cuts the below 60, gentler above.
High pass makes more sense to me, why are you using a different filter?

Sorry, who's that addressed to? You mean the wide dip?

feyshay · Post by **feyshay** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:10 pm

I was addressing that to either BDuffy or the ESoundz poster.
Anyone, actually, who could explain why for low frequency, a smiley face would work better than a ski slope (to use the proper EQ terminology).

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 7:16 pm

Well, as I recall, wide dips are more natural-sounding than more drastic EQ-ing like highpassing and cutting. Of course you should be highpassing/shelving, but in this case, it helps lower the problem area without changing the character of the sound too much.

Kim Lajoie · Post by **Kim Lajoie** » Thu Mar 01, 2007 8:51 pm

feyshay wrote:I have usually used high passes (depending on the source) from 60 to as high as 500. Higher dB cuts the below 60, gentler above.
High pass makes more sense to me, why are you using a different filter?

High pass filters are extremely important too (especially in dense modern music), but they're a completely different tool to a lower mid dip. A high pass filter is useful for removing the body or rumble of a sound to clean up the low end and make room for the kick and bass. A lower mid dip keeps the body or thickness in a sound, but reduces it in comparison with the definition in the upper mids. It's often useful to do both to a sound.

-Kim.

chilln · Post by **chilln** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:44 pm

BUMP! Stickie??!!

bduffy · Post by **bduffy** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:50 pm

Hey Chillin, enjoying the threads I see!

visa tapani · Post by **visa tapani** » Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:48 pm

pricer wrote:i've always interpreted the hi-fi eq smile as the Baxandall curve -

60Hz/0.29Q - 12kHz/0.34Q

I think the basic hifi-smiley is just compensating for the Fletcher-Munson equal loudness curves...

Hey bduffy, where have you gotten that Electri-Q skin you have on the pic on page 2?

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