EQ Is your best friend!

[rickrock305]

Originally Posted by bgrotto

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

this is what i tried to explain in my first post of this thread, using an 808 kick as an example.

i think this thread is just one big cluster f*ck of differing semantics train wreck of forum communication

[Justice]

Originally Posted by rickrock305

this is what i tried to explain in my first post of this thread, using an 808 kick as an example.

i think this thread is just one big cluster f*ck of differing semantics train wreck of forum communication

It always is my friend. It never ends with everyone saying oh yea thats it, your right. I will use that. thanks for the info....

Everybody has ego's. Its the way of the business.

As always, do what works for you. Someone who has a $10,000 monitoring system will EQ much different then someone with M-Audio monitors.

There is so much to throw in the mix that will effect your sound........

Just make it sound they way you want.

If you cant do that, then you have many, many, many, more hours in the studio to go!!!

I agree with everyone to a point. More, less, a lot, none. it all depends.

But if you shit is wack it will always be wack. No amount of EQ will make a shitty song sound great.

IMO

[rickrock305]

Originally Posted by Justice

I agree with everyone to a point. More, less, a lot, none. it all depends.

this is going to be my reply for every thread from now on

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by rickrock305

this is what i tried to explain in my first post of this thread, using an 808 kick as an example.

i think this thread is just one big cluster f*ck of differing semantics train wreck of forum communication

Heh. "What is your major malfunction, numbnuts?!?"

[Aries]

I used to be a strictly EQ guy period. I would 'mix' everything in pro tools, then bounce it to disk and do a sound check on my regular Ken Wood House stereo...As i reviewed the mix on there i could then play with the Ken Wood graphic Eq and see what could be brought up or down ect. It worked well in most cases. I havent taken any school or anything and have learned about music production from others and mainly from hands on....

Even tho i use compression and Limiting these days i still test my tunes the exact same way(The Ken wood) before i do anything to them....I find it best to Eq first...then compress(especially vox), then limit to bring your overall mix up.

I have to thank my homie that went to music school for the tips on limiting. I had no idea how they worked or what they were for but i had them all along with the waves diamond set i had..LOL.. He introduced me to the L1 and L2 and ive been in love ever sinse...not to mention it helped give my basement produced music that 'pro' sound.

Anyway i dont think it should be an argument in general??ALL music has different sound and needs different techniques in the mix. Ive had music that simply didnt need compression in the past as well as music that needs it because of different elements...The same goes for Eq....

Although like i said i really value the L1 and L2 and im eagerly waiting to be able to afford either the langevin DVC and or somthing else like it as ive only messed with plugin's when it comes to this type of thing..

But as for bringing EVERYTHING up in the mix you gotta have a limiter on your master fader...I like to generally have the out ceiling set at -0.5 to -1 and the threeshold anywhere bettween 3 and 6 depending how loud the overall mix was to begin with.....im still learning tho and that little trick upped my sound by a lifetime....everyday in the studio is a learning exp....

[rickrock305]

Originally Posted by bgrotto

Heh. "What is your major malfunction, numbnuts?!?"

R Lee Ermey! LOVE that guy. one of my favorite movies ever.

[chk027]

Originally Posted by bgrotto

Heh. "What is your major malfunction, numbnuts?!?"

Holy dogchit!!!!

I glad he was not my father!

Now choke yourself!

[Barznbeats1]

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.

riiiiiiggghhhhhhtttttt.... and low end doesn't clip...?

[alyricalmind]

Originally Posted by Barznbeats1

riiiiiiggghhhhhhtttttt.... and low end doesn't clip...?

No, the lowest dynamics do not clip... (I'm hoping you were smart enough to know I wasn't speaking in terms of frequencies). Anyway, let's not again interrupt a debate when people with a higher knowledge are talking.

[Ken Lewis]

I've read most of this thread and still dont think i have a clue what you guys are all trying to talk about. Seems like kind of a silly arguement going on with a few very smart things said (Bgrotto)

I have maybe every EQ plugin out there, as well as a whole console of SSL EQ's, Neumann mastering EQ's, Avalon's, Sontec's, Lang, Oram and more. i use each for different reasons and for different goals. I look for an equalizers strenght (even plugin EQ's alot of the time have specific characteristics that i really like and dislike.

I use LOADS of compression and often dont ride things much (though often i do)

I use EQ to make my overall mix louder, clearer, and i use compression in different ways for the same reason.

With all due respect to our forefathers in this industry, this is 2008. unless your doing jazz or classical, or something thats supposed to have loads of dynamics, music aint as dynamic as it used to be. if your a pro mixer, you better realize this quick.

Often people ask How did they get the sound of the 90's, or 80's or 70's, etc...

I think mostly the difference between that and today is back then you were limited to 48 tracks MAX usually, and often to 24 tracks, and the further back you go, the lower the track counts. SO, people were trying to cram less shit into the same sonic space, thereby needing EQ and compression less as carving and regulatory tools than nowdays when i am cheering any time i get a mix in thats under 48 tracks!!! which is rare. you cant compare whats done now to what was done then for this reason, for the most part.

70's records were more dynamic because of lower track counts and vinyl records. you couldnt mash a wall of sound onto vinyl. the medium didnt allow it to happen. L2 would have been a horrible tool for the mix buss in the 70's. Oh yeah, and players actually knew how to play dynamically back then as well (that was for you PSM :-) but they also had more room to play back then too.

Nowadays, most songs are a zillion tracks, in your face, gotta carve out room for everything. I use EQ and compression differently now than i did in the 90's. its adifferent market, different demands. and boy am i rambling, but hopefully this will give someone some EQ and compression insights.

[Stitch333]

Originally Posted by Ken Lewis

I've read most of this thread and still dont think i have a clue what you guys are all trying to talk about. Seems like kind of a silly arguement going on with a few very smart things said (Bgrotto)

I have maybe every EQ plugin out there, as well as a whole console of SSL EQ's, Neumann mastering EQ's, Avalon's, Sontec's, Lang, Oram and more. i use each for different reasons and for different goals. I look for an equalizers strenght (even plugin EQ's alot of the time have specific characteristics that i really like and dislike.

I use LOADS of compression and often dont ride things much (though often i do)

I use EQ to make my overall mix louder, clearer, and i use compression in different ways for the same reason.

With all due respect to our forefathers in this industry, this is 2008. unless your doing jazz or classical, or something thats supposed to have loads of dynamics, music aint as dynamic as it used to be. if your a pro mixer, you better realize this quick.

Often people ask How did they get the sound of the 90's, or 80's or 70's, etc...

I think mostly the difference between that and today is back then you were limited to 48 tracks MAX usually, and often to 24 tracks, and the further back you go, the lower the track counts. SO, people were trying to cram less shit into the same sonic space, thereby needing EQ and compression less as carving and regulatory tools than nowdays when i am cheering any time i get a mix in thats under 48 tracks!!! which is rare. you cant compare whats done now to what was done then for this reason, for the most part.

70's records were more dynamic because of lower track counts and vinyl records. you couldnt mash a wall of sound onto vinyl. the medium didnt allow it to happen. L2 would have been a horrible tool for the mix buss in the 70's. Oh yeah, and players actually knew how to play dynamically back then as well (that was for you PSM :-) but they also had more room to play back then too.

Nowadays, most songs are a zillion tracks, in your face, gotta carve out room for everything. I use EQ and compression differently now than i did in the 90's. its adifferent market, different demands. and boy am i rambling, but hopefully this will give someone some EQ and compression insights.

very cool post and spot on- except I have to disagree about the vinyl thing.
I cut acetate/vinyl masters for a couple of years and compression is the most important part of the chain. Excessive dynamics make the saffire jump out the groove when you go to cut it. I was doing drum'n'bass dubplates and thats the only way we would mash all that crap on the plate---> compression.

[1ManBand]

can someone make a gearslutz feature where we receive an email everytime ken lewis or soundeq make a post?, so we dont have to read the... bad stuff.

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by Ken Lewis

I've read most of this thread and still dont think i have a clue what you guys are all trying to talk about. Seems like kind of a silly arguement going on with a few very smart things said (Bgrotto)

I have maybe every EQ plugin out there, as well as a whole console of SSL EQ's, Neumann mastering EQ's, Avalon's, Sontec's, Lang, Oram and more. i use each for different reasons and for different goals. I look for an equalizers strenght (even plugin EQ's alot of the time have specific characteristics that i really like and dislike.

I use LOADS of compression and often dont ride things much (though often i do)

I use EQ to make my overall mix louder, clearer, and i use compression in different ways for the same reason.

With all due respect to our forefathers in this industry, this is 2008. unless your doing jazz or classical, or something thats supposed to have loads of dynamics, music aint as dynamic as it used to be. if your a pro mixer, you better realize this quick.

Often people ask How did they get the sound of the 90's, or 80's or 70's, etc...

I think mostly the difference between that and today is back then you were limited to 48 tracks MAX usually, and often to 24 tracks, and the further back you go, the lower the track counts. SO, people were trying to cram less shit into the same sonic space, thereby needing EQ and compression less as carving and regulatory tools than nowdays when i am cheering any time i get a mix in thats under 48 tracks!!! which is rare. you cant compare whats done now to what was done then for this reason, for the most part.

70's records were more dynamic because of lower track counts and vinyl records. you couldnt mash a wall of sound onto vinyl. the medium didnt allow it to happen. L2 would have been a horrible tool for the mix buss in the 70's. Oh yeah, and players actually knew how to play dynamically back then as well (that was for you PSM :-) but they also had more room to play back then too.

Nowadays, most songs are a zillion tracks, in your face, gotta carve out room for everything. I use EQ and compression differently now than i did in the 90's. its adifferent market, different demands. and boy am i rambling, but hopefully this will give someone some EQ and compression insights.

Thanks, Ken!

[Ken Lewis]

Originally Posted by Stitch333

very cool post and spot on- except I have to disagree about the vinyl thing.
I cut acetate/vinyl masters for a couple of years and compression is the most important part of the chain. Excessive dynamics make the saffire jump out the groove when you go to cut it. I was doing drum'n'bass dubplates and thats the only way we would mash all that crap on the plate---> compression.

well, yes of course, but you know probably better than most here with your experience, that you cant put the same amount of low end on vinyl as you can CD, and you cant really fight the loudness wars in the same way. or am i wrong? if i am, school me brotha! I always like learning new $hit.

So, do you think they COULD have mastered those old 70's albums to vinyl back then a whole lot louder than they did? Where's Bob Olhsson when you need him!

[Stitch333]

Originally Posted by Ken Lewis

well, yes of course, but you know probably better than most here with your experience, that you cant put the same amount of low end on vinyl as you can CD, and you cant really fight the loudness wars in the same way. or am i wrong? if i am, school me brotha! I always like learning new $hit.

So, do you think they COULD have mastered those old 70's albums to vinyl back then a whole lot louder than they did? Where's Bob Olhsson when you need him!

I criticize others about semantics and have fallen into myself.
No critique intended, Ken. You that dude...

As a Drum'n'Bass mastering engineer? Oh my f-ning gawd too much bass!
I remember one time cutting a bunch of plates for Dara from POTD's and he kept complaining that there wasn't enough bass. Like 2 sets of plates=not enough bass. So finally, I cranked the crap outta it, cut the lacquer and ran down to the club to deliver as he was playing that night.
I talked with him the next day: he said it was the loudest and best bass he'd ever gotten on a dubplate but the bass cut such a huge swath that it turned out mono. Only one side played!
BUT the record still cut. I had plates that would skip a groove with too much dynamics.
CD's ARE a whole other story...

ultimately, no. Vinyl has bigger limitations than any other modern media in terms of bandwidth and maximum volume.
Play the loudness war on vinyl and you start loosing out bigtime. The thing that is so cool about vinyl is that to get the signal to the lathe, you need big, old, discrete amps and limiters.
THAT was usually what made all that crap I was cutting sound half decent...
the sonics, mind you...not the actual music.

So, in RE: this thread, yes, eq, allaround is very important.
And compression, is also important.

And if Bob shows up, he will most likely school the crap outta me...
It was a while ago I cut. But I remember loving the bombsite eyepiece
to check the goove. That was always the funnest part for me.

Thanks again, Ken for dropping gems!

[Justice]

{QUOTE}70's records were more dynamic because of lower track counts and vinyl records. you couldnt mash a wall of sound onto vinyl. the medium didnt allow it to happen. L2 would have been a horrible tool for the mix buss in the 70's. Oh yeah, and players actually knew how to play dynamically back then as well (that was for you PSM :-) but they also had more room to play back then too.{QUOTE}

and a hell of a lot more money too. Right Ken???

[Ken Lewis]

Originally Posted by Justice

and a hell of a lot more money too. Right Ken???

I'm not hurtin

[PettyCash]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

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

Seriously?

Can you explain how much better and why?

I would think turning up the buffer to be something more for those who's CPUs need the extra help to run the plug.

[PettyCash]

Originally Posted by bgrotto

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.

This is along the same lines of what I meant when I use to bitch at people on here about "spectral mixing".

Its definitely not for the lazy at heart, but for those who strive for excellent sounding mixes, no matter how much hours and effort it will take.

[Ken Lewis]

Originally Posted by PettyCash

This is along the same lines of what I meant when I use to bitch at people on here about "spectral mixing".

Its definitely not for the lazy at heart, but for those who strive for excellent sounding mixes, no matter how much hours and effort it will take.

i've never actually tried pure spectral mixing, but i think any engineer uses this general technique as a tool without even thinking about it. Having said that, i tend to think anything that limits you to a certain rulebook when mixing is probably a mistake. spectral mixing as one tool in your toolkit for mixing is valuable. limiting yourself to pure spectral mixing seems flawed to me

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by PettyCash

Seriously?

Can you explain how much better and why?

I would think turning up the buffer to be something more for those who's CPUs need the extra help to run the plug.

Other way round...actually becomes rather greedy with high buffer setting, but definitely improves the eq and reverb.....

[smoke]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

Other way round...actually becomes rather greedy with high buffer setting, but definitely improves the eq and reverb.....

Yeah it's working with more samples/higher resolution. If you do a search, someone has posted all the settings you need to get the best out of Ozone. IMO the difference is subtle, but my ears aren't THAT good yet.

Here. Ozone Like Hareware

[DEZEA]

rofl at those statements..EQ is much more important than compression.. no doubt. There are a lot of old songs that weren't using compression at all, just mixing and eq.. and you can still do a song with zero compression and sound nice with some good equalisation.

[bgrotto]

Originally Posted by DEZEA

rofl at those statements..EQ is much more important than compression.. no doubt. There are a lot of old songs that weren't using compression at all, just mixing and eq.. and you can still do a song with zero compression and sound nice with some good equalisation.

</