Are you afraid of EQ?

[Jules]

Sorry to repeat all this below again, but I am quite excited to report, it is working!

Main test will be to hear the final 'junior" mastering job (by myself) version, as presently I am Monitoring my mix via a Finalizer (exibiting it's usual metallic HF nastyness)

But so far so good.

I have been able to A/B with commercial CD's and 'match them closely' tone wise..IMHO

I am set up to create flat 96k 24 bit mixes

Then save em for archive but do my own junior mastering session with better EQ tools than the Finalizer at a later stage when I have had some distance from mixing.

Very minimal EQ going on, some dips in the mudd range on GTRS.

So in a nutshell I am digging the use of a 'guide' eq across the mix.

Report over for now.

-----------------

THING ABOUT RECORDING FLAT with no EQ IS THAT AT SOME POINT (scuse caps) it becomes painfully obvious that your recording sounds like dull muffled mud compared with mastered commercially released CDs.

Do you...Press on regardless?

It's kind of hard to switch from say, the Chili Peppers during a lunch break to ones own "puddle of mud" when you start up again...

At mixdown I DO like to show bands how I've made their mixes stand up against the competitions CD's.

At the mix do you...

1) Strap an EQ across the mix buss at mixdown to bring the brightness up so you dont go round wasting valuable EQ bands by doing the same 'brightening job' on all individual channels.

2) (I like this one) Strap a TEMPORARY EQ across the mix buss FOR MONITOR ONLY to bring the brightness up so you dont go round wasting valuable EQ bands by doing the same 'brightening job' on all individual channels. HOWEVER, BYPASSING IT AS YOU PRINT THE MIX

3) mix in a 'world of mud' and 'take care' of it in mastering

I've already got mastering engineers to admit that a LOT of what they do is crank in HIGH QUALITY top end onto mixes. This is simply "the truth". Its a BIG part of the job..

THANKS TO YOU GUYS kicking off a patch bay daydream!!!

Here's how I am going to mix my next project (a sort of Buzzcocks/Ramones/Oasis hybrid)

Analog mix buss
Cranesong STC-8 / or SSL comp
Cranesong Hedd A/D - 96k 24 bit
Masterlink
TC Finalizer 96k - SRC to 44.1 16 bit - WITH (rough) MASTERING "SMILE CURVE" including - HF BOOST!
Cranesong Hedd D/A 44.1 16 bit - FOR MONITORING & A/B switching between commercial CD's (done via AES & SPDIF switching on Hedd)

Benefits:

1) I wont eq HF needlessly into all individual channels
2) I print a flat, 96k 24 bit master that presents an 'open road' for any mastering engineer
3) I can A/B to Commercially made CD's
4) the Finalizer EQ settings although never actually used on the master (god forbid, too metallic IMHO) might provide some sort of ballpark guide frequencies for any future 'junior' mastering I may do later with Sony GML EQ's within a PT mastering session.

Thanks a lot guys!

[A Reel Person]

[20db.com]

As long as he doesn't start arguing with himself, other wise I would start to worry about him.


Lee

[20db.com]

SM, you must manage one of those companies that have ME, Myself and I as employees.

You need get out more of the studio more and get some sunshine.

Lee

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally posted by cajonezzz
Hey Jay , where did you get this box? I heard one in use the other day by a local engineer. I had never seen one. He said it came out of their home audio gear? what can you tell us about it?

It takes whatever goes in and makes low freq. sounds come out. There's a control for the 20-35hz region and one that's a bit higher, I think 35-55hz or something like that. I got it used from a DJ shop. Behringer makes a similar thing called the Ultrabass, it's a bit easier to find and cheaper too. You can create some real danger with that box but it's great when you need it. The owner of the first studio I assisted at used three of them on each mix. That's going a little overboard IMHO. It usually sees battle on kick, bass and toms. I'll run it off a buss and bring it back to a channel.

BTW, are the voices in my head bothering you???

[e-cue]

I'm suprised you like the Ultrabass Jay... The sub processor in the ultrafex works better for me than my Ultrabass unit which is collecting vast amounts of dust back home. The main sound I got with mine was a subby 'dub' bass sound that sounded shitty and resistant when mixed in with the original signal, or it had no attack (sometimes a good thing I guess) on it's own. To each his/her own.

Back to the thread:

Eq'ing to tape, for me, is very dependent on the trust I have in my montioring situation. If I'm tracking on a set of half blown auratones, forget about it. In these DAW / DSP costly days, I usually eq to daw not only to get it sounding right in the 1st place, but to save DSP on a bunch of unnessary eq's. If tracking live instrumental, I usually start with it at the source, then work my way down until I feel I HAVE to eq something. The synth/drum machine-based stuff I'm more likely to eq to get "crackulatin", as the kids say these days. (Is this where I'm supposed to say "HOHOHOHO"? )

[Pricey]

John Fogerty on EQ'ing to tape: "I don't trust those knob twiddlers."

From an interview in AUDIO magazine (sadly defunct).

I always second-guess my EQ'ing. I wouldn't trust myself to EQ to tape, unless it's just a high-pass filter. For me, mixing is a process of subtraction - using less and less EQ and compression until it's just barely enough. In fact, I use mostly subtractive EQ, very little boosting. I leave boosting for the mastering stage.

I like Jules' idea. I frequently use an EQ on the mix bus (less phase shift, and it "glues" the mix together), but I constantly switch it in and out so I can hear what's going on.

[joeq]

Originally posted by e-cue


In these DAW / DSP costly days, I usually eq to daw not only to get it sounding right in the 1st place, but to save DSP on a bunch of unnessary eq's. [/I] )

Do you think there is a sonic advantage as well as a DSP one? Does the hardware EQ sound better than the plug-in?

[Jules]

I would like to re-asses the new/old adage - "With a DAW it's good to get is sound the way you want going in" as an excuse to over eq & compress.

I am coming round to seing this as a delusional point of view.

Baisically its a kinda PITA mixing in a computer,

Sending in already eq'ed program dont change that,

Anyhow this month I am

flat in
Minimal EQ within mix
Mastering style gear on Mix buss

grudge

[bassmac]

re: adding HF with EQ

I always thought it was better to cut the lows and boost the level - so you're still working with the frequencies you originally recorded, instead of adding frequencies you didn't record with EQ.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally posted by e-cue
I'm suprised you like the Ultrabass Jay... The sub processor in the ultrafex works better for me than my Ultrabass unit which is collecting vast amounts of dust back home. The main sound I got with mine was a subby 'dub' bass sound that sounded shitty and resistant when mixed in with the original signal, or it had no attack (sometimes a good thing I guess) on it's own. To each his/her own.

I've never used the Ultrafex. Guess I'll have to try it whenever I come across one.

What I hate is when I get a mix together and it's good but too dull. I wish GML had a box that was just a high shelf EQ. Too many times (like last night) I find myself trying to cut back mids or lows and adding top to get the brightness up and wrecking the mix that I have.

[Dave Martin]

Originally posted by Jay Kahrs
I've never used the Ultrafex. Guess I'll have to try it whenever I come across one.

What I hate is when I get a mix together and it's good but too dull. I wish GML had a box that was just a high shelf EQ. Too many times (like last night) I find myself trying to cut back mids or lows and adding top to get the brightness up and wrecking the mix that I have.

That's my primary use for the RennEQ - high shelf, low shelf. The mids can take care of themselves.

[Jules]

Plug ins
Waves Linear mastering / Sony GML


Digital EQ
Weiss / Z-Sys

Analog EQ
Cranesong Ibis / Maselec / Sontech / Prism / Focusrite 315 / Massive Passive/ EAR / GML

All v spendy for the best tools for the job...

[Pricey]

I don't like Waves Linear EQ - it really screws up the transients, adding an audible "pre-echo." The higher the Q, the more "pre-echo." It's useless for drums. I like it as a high-pass for vocals, but I keep the Q at 3 or lower. If they could fix the damn "pre-echo," it would be brilliant.

[Robinhood]

I didnt used to be, then I started useing EQ on DAW´s............then I was..................Now I dont give a flying F.... I realise how reclkess that sounds, but I have never been able to get what I used to from analog EQ with Digital. I was really beginning to go up my own Ass with the digital EQ thing. If it sounds good I dont care where the paramaters are its in the mix, and some of the EQ curves I use now just wouldnt work on analog IMO. (not to mention that many of you would be horrified)

Not scared now

[bassmac]

Originally posted by bassmac
re: adding HF with EQ

I always thought it was better to cut the lows and boost the level - so you're still working with the frequencies you originally recorded, instead of adding frequencies you didn't record with EQ.

Bump

[Jon Best]

Originally posted by Jay Kahrs
I've never used the Ultrafex. Guess I'll have to try it whenever I come across one.

What I hate is when I get a mix together and it's good but too dull. I wish GML had a box that was just a high shelf EQ. Too many times (like last night) I find myself trying to cut back mids or lows and adding top to get the brightness up and wrecking the mix that I have.

The high shelves on the Langevin Dual Vocal Combo (also on the Lang mic pre/EQ) are great for this- gentle filters, very simple, and they do a good job of adding top with minimal fuss.

[paterno]

Originally posted by bassmac

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by bassmac
re: adding HF with EQ

I always thought it was better to cut the lows and boost the level - so you're still working with the frequencies you originally recorded, instead of adding frequencies you didn't record with EQ.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bump

unless you actually want the sound brighter...

Do whatever you need to do to get it to sound right to your ears. Don't mix with your eyes...

-John

[mdbeh]

Any time you use EQ, boost or cut, you're changing existing frequencies.

I second the vote for the High Shelf on the DVC.

[river]

Generally the 'Cheaper" the EQ the more reason NOT to EQ. The shortcomings of cheaper EQ will increase the amount of phase shift and generally sound shit regardless.

Bingo. Even good EQ adds phase shift, it's the nature of the reactive components in an EQ circuit (capacitors and coils). Most EQ plugins are designed to emulate the phase warping character of analog hardware EQ also.

Sure. Unless you you're doing it wrong without knowing it.
Well, then you just EQ it again >>>Cough<<<

....and run the risk of the mix collapsing like a souffle from phase buildup. I'm not at all afraid of EQing during mixdown, sometimes using large amounts of boost or cut, but why limit yourself on the back end by piling a bunch of phase on the printed tracks? You can't take it back by just reversing what you did going in, the phase artifacts will still be there. It works for some people to commit when printing, but it definitely limits your options about changing your mind later on. The correct mic for the source material with good placement, and the shortest path from mic to medium will make for easier mixing.

[moon_unit]

yea ... 2003 was a good year.



Thanks for the time capsule.

[Musiclab]

When I first started engineering and for years I eq'd to to tape, later on even when I wouldn't eq most instruments I would alway eq the drums. As time has gone on I've found that if I used the right mics and put them in the right place, especially with drums
I could get them bright and punchy. I also found that if I eq'd once rather than tracking and then in the mix, that everything sounded alittle punchier.
So my general practice is to not eq when tracking. Also I tend to do a fair amount of high track count productions, so I want to make those decisions later. I find I can get really good sounds with placement and then use the eq in the mix to sweeten it just a bit
and to make things fit. An example of drums I tracked recently with no eq are here: Audio Clips of Rough Mixes from Basics Sessions!!!
Having said that, if I can't get a good sound in the tracking, I'll do what ever I have to.
Also when you're using a kick in and kick out just changing the proportions of how loud they are is like eqing , the same with the snare top mic and side or [ugh] bottom. Sometimes you find some more top from the hat leakage.

[Jimbo]

Originally Posted by moon_unit

yea ... 2003 was a good year.



Thanks for the time capsule.

I find it interesting that this was posted in "Low End", and most of the posts are from people who I consider "High End" veterans.

I guess things were different five years ago.