Is EQ evil

[abilityrecords]

To me, the debate over boosting vs. cutting really comes into play when you have the option of either or. It's true that sometimes you just need to boost some particular frequencies to achieve a sound, and sometimes you just need to cut out some bad frequencies. However, most of the time, the EQ moves I make are to achieve some overall sound - like making something "clearer" for example (there are many examples).

When this is the case, I almost always elect to cut frequencies rather than boost. Let's take making something "clearer" as an example. If you have a drum mic in front of the kit, and you want to achieve a clearer, punchier sound, you might want to boost some 80 Hz to have the weight of the kick drum come through, boost some 3-7K to make the snare crisper, and boost a shelf at like 12K to brighten up the cymbals and the overall sound.

When you do all this boosting, a few things happen. One, the sound gets much less natural. You might lose some of the depth of the kick drum (below where you boosted), for example, or the high end sounds brighter but more uneven as well. Additionally, depending on the EQ (or EQs) you use to do all of this, there will be different phase issues and frequency artifacts ADDED to the sound that weren't there before.

The solution for this is to simply find the frequencies in the sound that are making it "muddy" or not "clear." Often times a simple cut somewhere between 200-500 Hz will take out the muddiness of the sound, then you simply turn up the overall volume by a few dB and your sound is there. By cutting, you retain as much of the original sound as you actually want, while not adding any bad artifacts and still achieving your sonic goal.

Lastly, while it almost always sounds better to the untrained ear to boost with EQ (because the sound is closer to what you want, and the volume is LOUDER), if you ask most good engineers, an EQ cut with a volume boost can almost always achieve a better result.

Of course there are TONS of times when boosting make perfect sense, but MOST of the time, if the SAME RESULT can be had by cutting frequencies, this is probably the better option.

jeez... sorry for the long post...

-Matt

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by wwittman

I don't get the "cutting is BETTER" concept.
WHY is it?

I suspect it's more a matter of seeming safer because it's harder to hear cuts than boosts. I don't think it's really safer unless you are using really bad monitors.

[maxim]

eq doesn't kill music

people kill music

[7rojo7]

Originally Posted by maxim

eq doesn't kill music

people kill music

For me it depends entirely on the music on how to approach the recording.
I use entirely different sets of principles. mics, placement, to eq and or compress while tracking or not, all depends on whether it's classical, jazz, death metal, traditional. Put up 20 mics around a jazz drummer, they get nervous, put up 3 mics on a metal drummer (?). Same for EQ and the various techniques and gear used to achieve it. Everything is dictated by the music and the respect that should be shown to each genre.
So you can use carving where carving is needed, The cut policy or the boost factor, they all have different "personalities".
I think the listening at low volumes on good monitors suggested is the best way, I hear so many things in public that are just out of phase reverb, HH and sibilant vocals. It's easy to get this result mixing at high volumes.
Thanks for EQ because without it some things are just not possible.

[in2dblues]

I am not very experienced in Voltage regulators. But what kind of voltage regulators (and how many) would I need to protect my new expensive PA set up consisting of two Mackie 1801's; Two Mackie SA1232's and Four Mackie SM450's. Can I run them all through the same unit? Any other options? Thanks for any advice.

[Ted Nightshade]

I'm one of these cats who doesn't hardly ever use EQ.

One simple reason- when I track it as well as I can w/o EQ, it just translates and translates.

Not really surprising, I suppose. How do you know if you're EQing (or any other processing, for that matter) for those monitors in that room or for whatever system it's played back on? Experience could be the only way.

Another reason- when mastering gets it, are they going to be re-EQing what I already EQ'd once? That has real potential to become a mess, EQ on top of EQ.

Third reason- a really good EQ (GML comes to mind) is more than I can afford without some really frantic gearsluttery. And I do fine without one.

Fourth reason- Every damn thing you put in the chain costs you sonically. I like having things as short and sweet as can be.

YMMV, widely!

As for that phasey sound, it's a sound. It can be cool. It can be just what the doctor ordered. Or it can be not so cool. I'd just as soon skip it.

[Sound_God]

Im with 7rojo7 on this issue, depends on the situation.

[lucey]

Yes ... EQs are all Evil!



Send your EQs to me for immediate interrogation c/o Guantanomo Patch Bay







Actually I love eq! I might just marry it ... love it, love it ... and the better the source and the better the eq, the more we can do with the least negative artifacts.

A shitty EQ can cut and still sound shitty, just less so compared to if it was boosting. A great EQ, that's also the right EQ for the job, can be boosted plenty ... and the phase is all part of that tone.

I'm talking outboard ... as far as plugs, I have no idea ... but they seem to pale next to great outboard and I'd probably cut more than boost with most of them were I mixing ITB ... and then let the ME boost the whole midrange, or low end, at mastering. Happens here all the time, where clients are afraid of the horrible sounds boosting tracks from 2-10k and the low end is not very full either ... so they just focus on the mix, leave it all flatter, and I do the rest.

And I love that. No phase issues means more freedom and better tone. Love eq ... did I mention that




Bob's wise point is also my experience, that the monitors matter more as you boost more ... very interdependent. For that matter compressors are similar ... what sounds good on your monitors may not be doing what you think you've just done.

Sell your EQs to me and buy some better monitors .. will ya!?

[Ted Nightshade]

Guantanomo Patch Bay

[kevinc]

Originally Posted by Ted Nightshade

One simple reason- when I track it as well as I can w/o EQ, it just translates and translates.

That`s a big reason why I`ve been using less and less EQ these days. A lot of times I don`t like the EQ moves I made even on the same monitors I used when I check back on a mix the next day. When you add in the variables different speakers will make on top of that it could end up being a big phasey trainwreck when it hits other systems.

It just seems so much cleaner when it allready sounds like it`s supposed to in tracking and you can just leave it alone for the most part in the mix.

When I do EQ now I try to cut the stuff that sounds like shit instead of boosting other stuff to cover it up if that makes any sense. After that sometimes I`ll search around for the freq that seems to be at the core of the sound and boost a bit so the instrument kind of stands out in it`s own area. I`m usually much more cautious with the boosts these days though. I figure it`s harder to do damage if I keep it to a minimum and if I`m not sure about something it`s better to use none at all. Theres less surprises when I listen back 3 mths later that way.

[raal]

Originally Posted by Produceher

Some mush is a good thing. It's like a grilled cheese sandwich. You don't want to taste the cheese separate from the bread. You want them to become one.

dam that's good! another food group for fletcher's t-shirts! can i use it as my signature?

[toolskid]

e-cue is definitely evil good

[yeloocproducer]

Just to kind of re-emphasize some of what's been posted here.... I think part of the logic behind cutting is that the phasey-ness is reduced when it exists predominately in the area you are cutting (less heard), as opposed to residing in the area you're emphasizing. That's why cutting sounds more natural, and I almost always reach for it first. But there's plenty of occasions where unnatural = aggressive = cool. Esp. in drums for hip hop, or almost any instrument in rock that you want to drive and stand out w/aggression in the mix. If you're going to be boosting, you better have an eq that you like the character of and I always save my best eqs (API, Neve and GML) for these applications. Use your plug-ins for the filtering and cuts. Also, In hip-hop I'm always carving stuff away in instruments (digital highs, muck, and subs), and in rock I do the same but I try to leave a bit of connective mush/overlap in there... so it doesn't sound too thought out. Sometimes that's the worst thing for a rock band. Unless you like that kind of high-tech frequency "specific" sounding mix (more modern/ commercial). To me it usually sounds kind of gross.http://gearslutz.com/board/newreply....te=1&p=310234#

[Wiggy Neve Slut]

EQ is the bomb..

Its just like that scene from that indiana jones movie where he has to choose the 'right' chalice.. EQ is the same. They all work and sound differently and are all useful in some application. However as lucey said the truth to a powerful and good EQ deisgn is in the manner in which it both cuts and boosts. I mean even some of the cheaper eqs sound 'OK' ( not stellar!) in the cutting role, but when you start to wind in some frequency that is where they really show their hand of cards.

Cheers
Wiggy

[StuartMac]

Speaking of which, Wiggy, did you know the beloved Expounder is no more

I've been offered the last of the factory units at a good price.