EQ Is your best friend!

[bgrotto]

OK, James, just to play devil's advocate: what about Bruce Swedien's work? He claims to use little-to-no compression.

Also, regarding your point

"EQ Only Mix: sure, there's separation and no masking, but levels are jumping all over the place unless someone took five years to automate everything. Chances are it would be overly EQ'd trying to make things "play well" together."

Hip hop mixes are by their nature, less dynamic. Compression is rarely used for control of dynamics, and more for shaping of envelope (with the exception of vocals, of course).

Anyway, for what it's worth, I'm not voting for McCain...

And I think that the importance of a tool is dictated by the mix at hand (crappy recordings need lotsa EQ, great recordings might need more compress [if there's no time for volume rides]).

[alyricalmind]

Originally Posted by beat you down

that's "all" i'm saying... or trying to say.
and oh... thanks for elaborating.

Taking out muddy frequencies will only effect the lower dynamics as I said before... not the highest. When talking about turning up a track, the focus is all on the highest dynamics as those are the ones that clip, not the lower ones. If "all" you're trying to say is that in the end, one must rely on compression to increase overall volume or that better EQ results in less muddyness when the compressor kicks in, then I guess we are both on the same page. I don't see where the "EQ makes tracks louder" part comes in.

[Justice]

EQ has been a great tool for years......

IMO

I cant see mixing with out it.....

Also compression is the second part too....

they work together at the end of the day.

You can put all kinds of sounds and sonics with the both....

Kinda like you push with EQ and Pull with Comp....

[rickrock305]

Originally Posted by alyricalmind

Taking out muddy frequencies will only effect the lower dynamics as I said before... not the highest. When talking about turning up a track, the focus is all on the highest dynamics as those are the ones that clip, not the lower ones.

ummm....huh?

[Barznbeats1]

Originally Posted by rickrock305

ummm....huh?

ea, he f*&ked me up with that one too! lol

[alyricalmind]

Originally Posted by Barznbeats1

ea, he f*&ked me up with that one too! lol

Maybe I'm going into more detail than I should. This is where I end trying to convince an ignorant audience.

[rickrock305]

ignorant audience?

check yourself homie. this "ignorant audience" is comprised of a lot of working professionals.

[Umlaaat]

Originally Posted by alyricalmind

Maybe I'm going into more detail than I should. This is where I end trying to convince an ignorant audience.

[James Meeker]

Originally Posted by bgrotto

OK, James, just to play devil's advocate: what about Bruce Swedien's work? He claims to use little-to-no compression.

You cannot prove or disprove a broad concept by the use of a one that is more specific and smaller in scope, so I have no real comment other than the obvious reasons.

[coyotekells]

I feel sorry for the intelligent people who made accurate statements, but are getting bashed by people who either misinterpreted them, are looking from a different scope, or are simply not educated well...

[rickrock305]

Originally Posted by alyricalmind

Taking out muddy frequencies will only effect the lower dynamics as I said before... not the highest. When talking about turning up a track, the focus is all on the highest dynamics as those are the ones that clip, not the lower ones.

i'd like an explanation on how EQ affects dynamics.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by rickrock305

i'd like an explanation on how EQ affects dynamics.

If your raw sound has unruly peaks, say because it was recorded in a room with standing waves, like someone said before these will likely be the loudest thing in the signal. The signal will be jumpy dynamically because of them. You notch them out and end up with a more dynamically even signal, which in turn you can afford to turn up louder........

[shangoe]

i did not read the coplete thread in case someone said it before:

after years turning eqs and following years twidle on comps i was getting better in arrangements and sounds. today eq is the last thing i use. arrangement first! find a better bassline ans so on...then improof your sounds: find a better kickdrum, find a better sound of this and that. at last when everything is on my desk and sounds fine!...Then comes the eq (or not because its not needed anymore) for the blessed touch. every part of the mix will fall at the right place.

talking of mixing here, i do eq on tracking often also.

[optikstrange]

Originally Posted by Jake Gilla

Actually, it does if you understand the basic principle of audio perception. You've said it yourself already in both posts. Removing unwanted frequencies creates more dynamics and leaves the mix more open.

We have to remember that volume in a perceptual sense, is purely a ratio between two sources. This is the psychology of sound. Imagine your on a construction site and you have people yelling, trucks moving and all types of nailing and screwing going on. When that jack hammer kicks in, it does not seem as loud as say if you decided to bust apart the patio in your backyard.

Here's another example that you can try yourself, sit is your car at night in the garage, it should be dead quiet. Now scratch your finger nail against the interior of your car. Hear how loud it is? Now do the same thing in rush hour traffic at 7AM and you probably wont even hear it. The actual amplitude of the sound waves has not changed, but the perceived volume has.

These same principles can be applied to mixing, especially the low end. The bass and kick are always fighting for a lot of the same space. But by properly attenuating frequency's in these two tracks you can increase the apparent volume of that crowded low end and define both instruments.

Now if you want more explanation than that, I recommend doing some research on both the psychology of sound and the anatomy of the ear. These principles, at least i'd hope, should be invaluable to any mixing and tracking engineer.

This theory is great

[optikstrange]

Originally Posted by James Meeker

Compression is what makes a song sound "pro."

So i dont need high end convertors anymore? What compressor are u using?

I wish it was that easy to make my song sound "PRO"

[optikstrange]

Originally Posted by bgrotto

Anyway, for what it's worth, I'm not voting for McCain...

I wonder if McCain uses compression? before or after EQ? i guess will find out near election day

[optikstrange]

DAM! Look what i started,Im glad i made this thread KEEP EM COMIN YALL!


How bout everyone list there go to EQ'S and Compressors here's mine

Izotope ozone - eq
Pulteq bundle
Smack
SSL EQ plug-in
Presonus eureka mic pre with eq and compressor

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by optikstrange

DAM! Look what i started,Im glad i made this thread KEEP EM COMIN YALL!


How bout everyone list there go to EQ'S and Compressors here's mine

Izotope ozone - eq
Pulteq bundle
Smack
SSL EQ plug-in
Presonus eureka mic pre with eq and compressor

If you use Ozone, don't forget to up the buffersize to max, as the thing sounds much better that way.......

[Beechwood]

Originally Posted by James Meeker

You cannot prove or disprove a broad concept by the use of a one that is more specific and smaller in scope, so I have no real comment other than the obvious reasons.

Bruce mixed the biggest selling album of all time! That's not small in scope! I dont have any stats to back me up, but I reckon the bulk of recorded music was recorded by engineers with a minimalist view of compression.

If you had to use either EQ or compression, what would you choose? EQ+automation beats compression for me.

[beat you down]

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by beat you down

LOL....."What did you do with my compressors, bitch??? Give them back!!"

[Stitch333]

Originally Posted by alyricalmind

I don't see where the "EQ makes tracks louder" part comes in.

When two individual sounds have phasing issues due to overlapping frequencies, the resulting sound will have frequencies that cancel out causing a decrease in program volume. Remove or lower with an eq said frequency specific phasing issue and the volume will increase and sound more 'full' and 'solid'.

Cheers!

[Stitch333]

Originally Posted by Beechwood

recorded by engineers with a minimalist view of compression.

and maximal view of fader automation...

[smoke]

Originally Posted by alyricalmind

Maybe I'm going into more detail than I should. This is where I end trying to convince an ignorant audience.

Can't see where this comes from, and I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

It's a moot argument really bordering on semantics (and misunderstanding) anyways. This all started when someone said, "EQ makes the sound louder". That's probably a simplified statement, but it's obvious what the point is, and not worth challenging. Most people understand the relationship between the frequency spectrum and perceived loudness in order to put 2+2 together.

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by rickrock305

i'd like an explanation on how EQ affects dynamics.

OK, check this out:

I'm commonly asked by my interns how I get my mixes so loud. They often complain that even with judicious use of an L2 or somesuch, their stuff just doesn't compare to commercial releases. On the other hand, my non-limited mixes are within a few dBs of some (more conservative) mastered commercial material.

The reason is this:

They get their mix going, and they feel like certain elements aren't popping out enough. For the sake of this explanation, I'll use the snare. So their snares aren't popping out enough. What do they do? They turn the snare up, louder and louder, until it's sitting on top of the mix and hitting in the way they want it to. This, of course, pushes the peak volume of the mix quite high, while leaving the RMS level the same.

A more experienced mix engineer would adjust the balance by EQing those tracks with competing frequency ranges, making more space for the snare to pop, and eliminating the need to push the snare up in volume. This keeps the peak levels about the same, which means the RMS level can ultimately be pushed up further, which means a louder mix, thanks to a bit of EQ.


Another thing to consider is the way humans perceive the volumes of different frequencies; adding a buncha 3-4k to a mix is going to make it seem louder, because we are more sensitive to those frequencies.


Hope those half-cocked explanations sorta made sense for ya, Rick.

[Touchmaster]

Originally Posted by Beechwood

Bruce mixed the biggest selling album of all time! That's not small in scope! I dont have any stats to back me up, but I reckon the bulk of recorded music was recorded by engineers with a minimalist view of compression.

If you had to use either EQ or compression, what would you choose? EQ+automation beats compression for me.

a fellow brightonian eh? a rare occurrence in the dark recesses of the internet... how do you find the life of the brighton music maker?

[macleodgrant]

all you need is eq

give me the choice and i would take eq