The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Gear for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Are you afraid of EQ?
Old 11th March 2003
  #31
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!
Old 11th March 2003
  #32
Gear Head
 
A Reel Person's Avatar
 

Arrow I like a guy who quotes himself.

Old 11th March 2003
  #33
Gear Head
 

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


Lee
Old 11th March 2003
  #34
Gear Head
 

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
Old 11th March 2003
  #35
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
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???
Old 11th March 2003
  #36
Lives for gear
 
e-cue's Avatar
 

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 ****ty 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"? )
Old 12th March 2003
  #37
Gear nut
 
Pricey's Avatar
 

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.
Old 12th March 2003
  #38
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
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?
Old 12th March 2003
  #39
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
Old 12th March 2003
  #40
Lives for gear
 
bassmac's Avatar
 

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.

Old 12th March 2003
  #41
One with big hooves
 
Jay Kahrs's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
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 ****ty 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.
Old 12th March 2003
  #42
Moderator emeritus
 

Quote:
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.
Old 12th March 2003
  #43
All I need is the"air" just to master you

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...

Old 13th March 2003
  #44
Gear nut
 
Pricey's Avatar
 

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.
Old 13th March 2003
  #45
Gear Head
 

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



Old 13th March 2003
  #46
Lives for gear
 
bassmac's Avatar
 

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
Old 13th March 2003
  #47
Gear Head
 

Quote:
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.
Old 14th March 2003
  #48
Lives for gear
 
paterno's Avatar
 

Quote:
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
Old 14th March 2003
  #49
Gear addict
 
mdbeh's Avatar
 

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

I second the vote for the High Shelf on the DVC.
Loading mentioned products ...
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Joe_caithness / The Moan Zone
18
musicmatt / The Moan Zone
1559
middletom / So much gear, so little time!
10
mosrite / Remote Possibilities in Acoustic Music & Location Recording
101
Jay Kahrs / Low End Theory
52

Forum Jump