Alright Newbies, Ask A Question

[nowaysj]

I've had the same experience. I use very minimal eq. I do cut lows, but almost never as much as I should. I do find it sounds better. I do very little compressing as well, usually.

Less is more. Just do what you have to do when you hear there is an issue, and just focus on making interesting music. Honestly, I think that people that spend a lot of time on their mixes are doing so because they're lacking musical ideas. It is just a theory.

[nowaysj]

Oh, and welcome. I think you've the longest name I've seen on dsf in 7 years.

[fragments]

re: Minimal EQ

I am with Nowaysj for sure. I basically do low and high shelving. Sometimes I will get surgical with a notch to let a drum sound through. Usually notch out the bass wherever the punchy part of the kick is. Basically I do my EQ during arrangement and composition, then again during sound design. By the time I get to mixing I feel like there shouldn't be a ton to do.

I'm not sure I couldn't do like a crazy modern glitch/brostep midrange track this way, but that is pretty far from the kind of music I make : )

If you are finding your tracks a bit "cold" or empty you could try a parallel saturation bus. This would kinda sorta emulate mixing a track on an analog mixer where everything gets run through the same circuits. Wub posted a pretty great article about why 90's DnB got away with really minimal composition but sounded "full" and "warm". Basically those guys were using a lot of analog equipment (mixers, compressors etc) and all the sounds became fuller because of the pleasing harmonic distortion you get on a piece of analog gear. And I think that is pretty true...I have often found that my tunes done all in the box can have like a crazy amount of instruments/sounds and it'll still sound empty.

Digital/VST is 90% of the way to being able to sound like analog gear. But there is something about getting my sounds out of the box and into a piece of hardware, or starting with hardware that software hasn't achieved yet (at least according my biased ears).

Sorry, that went on a pretty irrelevant tangent. To sum up. Yep...don't worry about minimal EQing...EQ is corrective tool at the mix stage. If shit ain't broke, don't fix it!

[DrGatineau]

i agree about the shelves being the most common type of EQ I do, except for filters, you guys do a lot of filtering, right? i used to do lots of bells before i really learned how to mix/EQ, but i realized that bells are not as useful as they seemed when i was a beginner. use them sparingly and subtly.

[fragments]

i agree about the shelves being the most common type of EQ I do, except for filters, you guys do a lot of filtering, right? i used to do lots of bells before i really learned how to mix/EQ, but i realized that bells are not as useful as they seemed when i was a beginner. use them sparingly and subtly.

I do use filters instead of EQ quite often. Especially on sends when I just want to cut out a shit ton of low and low mid. I don't often do both high and low shelf on one sound though, which means I could probably just use a simple filter. So used to loading up an EQ that is my default

[DrGatineau]

i agree about the shelves being the most common type of EQ I do, except for filters, you guys do a lot of filtering, right? i used to do lots of bells before i really learned how to mix/EQ, but i realized that bells are not as useful as they seemed when i was a beginner. use them sparingly and subtly.

I do use filters instead of EQ quite often. Especially on sends when I just want to cut out a shit ton of low and low mid. I don't often do both high and low shelf on one sound though, which means I could probably just use a simple filter. So used to loading up an EQ that is my default

my default EQ has shelves and filters

[NinjaEdit]

Could be the phase problems introduced with EQ. Try using a linear phase EQ and see if that helps.

[cyclopian]

Interesting conversation in here for sure. Might as well step out of the shadows and quit lurking.

Anyways, this has been on my mind for the last year. Why do my mixdowns sound better with practically no eq? I did an experiment where I took a finished tune I made, and stripped it of all eq, save low/highpass and shelves where needed, and it sounded just as good as before, with all the eq'ing, except the mixdown as a whole seemed a bit more...together, for a lack of a better word. It's not like I was doing some hardcore eq, just modest cuts and boosts, mostly in my drums and bass.

It's just weird to me. I spent the time to eq these individual elements because I thought they had clashing frequencies, yet when I did an a/b comparison of the whole mixdown, it sounded better overall, with nothing but a little shelving and a couple of filters to keep my mids cleaned up, and I wasn't hearing any clashing frequencies. Not complaining, but just generally curious, cuz some people swear by eq, yet despite all the distortion and parallel processing, it sounded clean enough to hear everything going on still, and more cohesive without all the extra eq.
So, what are people's thoughts, comments, advice regarding eq'ing? Not exactly a noob question, but I'd love to discuss this.

You also have to remember that EQ'ing a sound will move it in the 'sound stage'. Could be the reason why your final mixdown feels less 'together'.

[nowaysj]

What do you mean move it in the sound stage, do you mean removing highs, and thus presence? Like location presence, not presence eq presence, which is, unconfusingly, the same thing?

[legend4ry]

This is where I find a graphic EQ can be better for general EQing then a parametric.

Its less clinical and generally has quite a relaxed steep, 6/12 is whats on the one I use. It can just tone down to the point where it is not taking headroom even if its inaudible.

You are also taking out 'character' from the sound, for instance if you cut a mid-range heavy pads' high end down the chances are this is where it gets its 'lush' sound and will just sound dull.

Instead of trying to take out what shouldn't be there with an EQ - you should be trimming off parts so it will fit together nicely. Just like you'd taper your smart trousers up a little so they are not baggy around the ankle.

Subtle and JUST enough to not be messy.

[NinjaEdit]

What do you mean move it in the sound stage?

He might mean the depth.

[cyclopian]

What do you mean move it in the sound stage, do you mean removing highs, and thus presence? Like location presence, not presence eq presence, which is, unconfusingly, the same thing?

If you remove lowend from a sound it will raise that sound vertically in the soundstage and vice versa.

[DrGatineau]

i'm pretty sure you just made that concept up.

but there's nothing wrong with coining a new term

unless you got it here: http://music.tutsplus.com/tutorials/mix ... -cms-21165

[cyclopian]

I dont see any 'terms' im trying to coin in my post; unless you mean sound stage?

The concept of higher freq material seeming higher and lower freq seeming lower in the sound stage is nothing new. How do you think vertical movement within the sound stage is possible otherwise?

Have you ever noticed that hi hats seem to sit more "on top" of the mix compared to a midrange sound? Thats due to the frequency content I.E vertical movement in the soundstage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEjOdqZFvhY

[DrGatineau]

yeah, the term "soundstage"

never really heard that one before.

of course the concept has been used since time but not really that term

[cyclopian]

I can assure you, I did not come up with the concept or the term sound stage

[legend4ry]

I've never heard that being called a sound stage. Is that more of a broadcasting term?

[cyclopian]

From wikipedia:
""Soundstage" of an acoustic recording

The term soundstage refers to the depth and richness of an audio recording and usually relates to the playback process. According to audiophiles, the quality of the playback is very much dependent upon how one is able to pick out different instruments, voices, vocal parts, and such exactly where they are located on an imaginary 2-dimensional or 3-dimensional field. The quality of this soundstage can enhance not only the listener's involvement in the recording, but also their overall perception of the stage.[1]"

And yeah, Legendary, it can also refer to a sound stage for recording audio for broadcast/movies; usually a large warehouse type space.



What do you guys call the imaginary space or 'room' of your tunes (the XYZ locations of sound in your mix)? Am I the only one here that uses this term? haha

[legend4ry]

I have heard it used in a broadcasting sense but never for production!

What do you guys call the imaginary space or 'room' of your tunes (the XYZ locations of sound in your mix)? Am I the only one here that uses this term? haha

Stereo field!

Basically, its like anything for music. It all has 23982813812 terms.

We're all just talking about this :

[m8son666]

I don't think i have used anything other than high or low pass shelves when eqing for ages, i find that if i think i need to do much more i should change the starting sound.

That being said my mixdowns do probably suffer because of it haha